Norwegian Examples in International Linguistics Literature

Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

An inventory of defective documentation

Jan Engh

Universitetsbiblioteket i Oslo 2006

UBO Skrifter: 32

ISBN 82-8037-007-2

Table of contents

Introduction: The query 1

The result 4

Norwegian characters 4

Word level errors 15

Accidental errors 15 Interference? 26

Phrase level errors 35

Correct morphological form used in an incorrect way 35

What kind of Norwegian? 40

Written standards. The Bokmål/Nynorsk confusion 40 Awareness of written standard 44 Inconsistency as to written standard 45 What is Norwegian after all? 48

Regional variants 48 Archaisms 55 Atypical language use 56

What was the name of this language again … ? 57 Syntactic errors 58 Odd sentences 71 Absurdities 84 Incorrect interpretation 85 Incorrect asterisks 89 It’s six of one and half a dozen of the other 89 Interference at a phrase or sentence level 90 Strange assertions 91

iii

Spurious references 102

Informants 102 Bibliographical references 104

Correct references 104 Erroneous references 108

Inheritance 111

From published information, written by other foreigners 111 From “personal communication” with other foreign linguists 113 From published information written by Norwegians 114 From “personal communication” with Norwegian linguists 115 “Transitive” inheritance 115

References (reviewed titles with defects) 117

Unpublished or non-refereed material 131

Norwegian characters 131 Accidental errors 132 Interference? 134 Syntactic errors 135 Odd sentences 138 Incorrect asterisks and other results of lack of understanding 147 Strange assertions 148 Spurious references 149

References (reviewed titles with defects) - not refereed 150

Other languages – a small sample 152

References (reviewed titles with defects) - other languages 155

Final observations 156

Bibliography (general) 158

iv Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

* Introduction: The query

The present inventory contains incorrect Norwegian examples found in the international literature on theoretical linguistics. The authors are all non-native speakers of Norwegian They are considered to be the authors as long as no Norwegian source is specified by them nor otherwise identified. Errors committed by Norwegian linguists that are quoted correctly by non-Norwegian linguists have been left out. On the other hand, errors made by foreign linguists when quoting Norwegian linguists have been included. The texts where the errors appear are all properly published and/or refereed, i.e. they have been published a) in linguistics journals, b) by publishers of high esteem, c) in reports from refereed linguistics conferences, or d) they have been accepted as Ph.D. theses by highly respected universities. For the sake of comparison, a smaller sample of incorrect examples from unpublished papers or non-refereed sources will be presented at the end of the report. Asterisked sentences have not been taken into consideration, since they are incorrect per definition. However, starred sentences are intended to be incorrect with respect to one particular dimension only or as far as one descriptive level is concerned, e.g. syntax. As a consequence, errors pertaining to different levels such as “pa”, “vill”, and “lose” in “*Hvordan lurer du pa hvilket problem Jon vill lose?” or “renst” in “*Jeg har renst ham (hans) bilen”1 have not been registered. Allegedly correct examples only containing punctuation errors have not been included in the inventory. Examples exhibiting all other types of errors (at character level, word level, phrase level, and sentence level, etc.) have been included - with the notable exception of examples simply displaying word forms spelled according to obsolete orthography or Dano-Norwegian. Such errors are basically the result of conscious political choices made either by the linguists or their informants, and cannot be automatically construed as anomalies at any level in the usual sense. E.g. “tyve” ‘twenty’ and “forsent” ‘too late’ instead of “tjue” and “for sent”. At character level and word level, there is a general consensus as to what is an error. Accordingly, errors identification is easy in principle. No theoretical considerations are involved. As far as errors at a “higher” descriptive level (phrase level and sentence level etc.) are concerned, full consensus cannot be expected. Thus, it is essential to adopt a robust definition for the identification of errors at any descriptive level, preferably one with no theoretical connotations, which are liable to derail the task at hand. As notion and designation are intimately linked in linguistics, the author will refrain from the use of designations such as “ungrammatical” and “unacceptable” in their usual chomskyan meaning, in order not to engage in any futile discussion of linguistic theory. Additionally, the pre-theoretical designations2 “wrong”/”error” and “odd”/”oddity” will be used extensively.3 A phrase or

* Thanks to Even Hovdhaugen and Stig Johansson who read a preliminary version and to a number of Norwe- gian non linguist friends and colleagues who were subjected to hundreds of linguists’ sentences during the query reported. 1 Rizzi 1990, 126n and Hoekstra 1995, 122 respectively. 2 Following Bach among others in principle: “Sequences of words that are claimed to be impossible sentences in a language are marked (---) with an asterisk; (---) question marks (---) will be used in an obvious manner to indicate questionable utterances.” (Bach 1974, 9n)

1 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

sentence is ungrammatical or wrong, when it is not considered Norwegian neither by the present author (a native speaker of the Oslo dialect and a regular user of the Bokmål written standard, with a linguist’s knowledge of other dialects) nor by members of informal panels of non linguist native speakers with a varied dialect background. A phrase or sentence is odd when two conditions apply: a) the sentence is considered Norwegian, although marginal (also in relationship to possible dialects etc.). b) Neither the author nor a panel of non linguist native speakers are able to imagine that the phrase or sentence in question will be used correctly in any situation. In an initial phase, all new foreign linguistics books purchased by the University of Oslo library during a three years period were searched. These monographs, proceedings etc. are supposed to be of the highest scientific quality and/or greatest relevance (although with a clear Anglo-American bias).4 In parallel, the electronic versions of the following linguistic journals were systematically searched for Norwegian material from the year indicated (inclusive) till the last number available by 1 March 2005: Journal of comparative Germanic linguistics (1997-), Journal of linguistics (1997-), Journal of semantics (2001- with the exception of 2001/1), Language (2001-), Languages in contrast (2000-), Lingua (May/1995-), Linguistic inquiry (1998-), Linguistics (1999-), Linguistics and philosophy (1997-), Natural language semantics (1997-), Natural language & linguistic theory (1997-), Studies in language (2001-), Syntax (1998- with a few exceptions)5 The material found was checked against the printed versions whenever possible in order to avoid formatting or character encoding errors due to the electronic media. Additionally, the printed versions of Linguistic inquiry 1978-1991 and 1993-1997 and Natural language & linguistic theory 1983-5 were searched, as well as the paper copies of Linguistic analysis (a sample of 20 issues 1984-2000), The Linguistic review (2001-), and Theoretical linguistics (1993-2002). The defective Norwegian examples turned out to pertain almost exclusively to syntax and typology.6 So, in a second phase, the library’s remaining stock of syntax and typology books from the last 50 years was searched in order to detect more examples, approximately 1500 books. No excerpts from titles published after 2005 has been included in the inventory. The result, approximately 346 excerpts 7 containing at least one case of deficient documentation8 made by 139 linguists under 167 titles, is displayed below.9 On the face of it, the result may not seem impressive, given the extent of the search domain. Yet, the number of Norwegian examples is high compared to the peripheral status of Norwegian

3 The two notions should not be considered as a strict dichotomy, though. Rather they ought to be regarded as referring to prototypical notions of description. 4 The University of Oslo library caters for researchers and students of theoretical as well as descriptive linguistics at all levels, including Ph.D. courses. 5 Evidently, the value of this particular query result is conditioned by an adequate indexation of the books and the reliability of the search function of the document handling program. 6 Very few Norwegian examples were found in the literature on phonetics, phonology, or morphology. They did not contain any significant errors. 7 Depending of the way of counting. 8 In fact, quite a few contain many examples each containing one or more errors. 9 Also displayed are several excerpts containing correct examples or contentions. These are, of course, not counted in the above crude statistics. This also holds for the sociolinguists referred to below in connection with the use of ‘code-switching’.

2 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

among the world’s languages and, most important in the present context, to the com- paratively infrequent references to Norwegian in international linguistics monographs and journals.10 Also, the examples exhibit a surprisingly rich variety of errors, ranging from character representation errors and mere misspellings to sheer nonsense. Most astonishing, though, is the extent of the deficient documentation of Norwegian. No sophisticated statistics is needed to detect a clear tendency: Of all the papers with Norwegian material written by foreign theoretical linguists, more than two thirds contained errors.11 In most cases many errors. This inevitably raises the question as to the validity of the argumentation that the examples are meant to support, a subject that will not be discussed here.

10 Norwegian has fewer than 5 million native speakers. In principle, they all live in Norway. In spite of the relative interest it has attracted as far as topics such as long-distance reflexives, parasitic gaps, adverb placement are concerned, Norwegian has kept its position as a "minor" language - also in linguistics literature. 11 Even when the less offensive ones are left out, cf. above.

3 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

The result

Every type of error has been given its own separate entry: In many cases, the error has been repeated in several contexts by the same author. In other cases, the error has been copied by others. All such instances have been included in the inventory. In cases where the example contains more than one type of error, it has been repeated under each relevant heading. Each excerpt has been given a light blue colour in order to distinguish it from biblio- graphic and other factual information and comments. Comments are indented. The graphic representation of each excerpt is similar to the original publication with various exceptions: exact margins, and tabs, fonts and font seize. Bold face characters have been converted to regular.

Norwegian characters

(25) (---) b. Dette er de dikte, som laereren spurte hvem vi trodde hadde skrevet (*dem). (---) ‘These are the poems that the teacher asked (us) who we thought wrote (them).’ (Maling 1978a, 87) Error: “laereren”. Correct: “læreren”.

This example contains more errors than the one identified here. As mentioned in the introduction, they will be identified and commented in the relevant subsection below.

(32) Dette er de diktene som laererin spurte oss hvem vi trodde hadde skrevet. (N) (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 241) Error: “laererin”. Correct: “læreren”. Repeated later as:

(32) Dette er de diktene som laererin spurte oss hvem vi trodde hadde skrivet. (N) ‘These are the poems that the teacher asked us who we thought had written.’ (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 245) Error: “laererin”. Correct: “læreren”.

Consider, for example, the following Norwegian example from Maling/Zaenen (1981):

(56) Dette er de diktene som These are the poems COMP laererin spurte oss [hvem vi trodde teacher asked us who we thought hadde skrevet] had written ‘These are the poems that the teacher

4 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

asked us who we thought had written.’ (Borsley 1993, 578) Error: “laererin”. Correct: “læreren”. Borsley’s reference is inexact. The quotation appears to be from Maling and Zaenen 1982, 241.12

(5) Det vil altid vaere dem som sier noe annet it will always be those(ACC) who say something different

A more striking piece of evidence is found in sentences such as those in (6), which are mentioned in Askedal (1986). (---)

(6) a. Det ble påstott å komme mange tilhörere it was claimed to come many listeners (---) (Hoekstra 1990, 213) Error: “vaere”. Correct: “være”. Askedal 1986, 31 contains a sentence similar to (5). Correct, but slightly different: (27) Det vil alltid være dem som mener noe annet. This author is unable to find any sentence similar to (6) in Askedal (1986).

The embedded clause variant of (1a) is given in (17). (17) immediately shows that ingen fuglar cannot be in the SPEC of the complement of vaere. (---).

(17) at det ingen fuglar var skotne that it no birds were shot+AGR3pl

(18) at det NPi vaere [AGRP ti AGR [VP skotne ti]] (Hoekstra 1990, 216) Errors: “vaere”. Correct: “være”.13

(9) (---) b. John synnes ham [ vaere en god venn] (Hoekstra 1995, 121) Error: “vaere”. Correct: “være”14

(63) Norwegian (Øystein Vangsnes, p.c.)

12 Except for the square brackets. By the way, the translation must be Borsley’s own - as an adaptation of the translation provided by Maling and Zaenen of a similar Swedish sentence right above the Norwegian one in their article. 13 I.e. ‘correct as intended’. At any rate, "vaere"/"være" is the wrong form. See below. 14 Cf. also Hoekstra’s structural description

(12) NPi vaere [AGRP t AGR [VP V ti]] (Hoekstra 1990, 215) And numerous “vaere” cited in the body of his article.

5 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

a. ?Hvilken oppdagelsesreisende spurte laereren deg hvilket kontinent _ oppdaget _? (Richards 2001, 77) Error: “laereren”. Correct: “læreren”.15

(100) a. den ulovlige kopieringen av populaere sanger that illegal-DEF copying-DEF of popular-PL songs-PL (Ackema and Neeleman 2004, 181) Error: “populaere”. Correct: “populære”.

(12) No. a. lareren gav elevene bøkene teacher-the gave students-the books-the (Giusti 1990a, 140) Error: “lareren”. Correct: “læreren”. Cf. Giusti 1990b, 638 below.

(18) a. Lareren gav elevene bøkene. teacher-the gave students-the books-the (Giusti 1990b, 638) Error: “Lareren”. Correct: “Læreren”. “I thank Tarald Taraldsen for Norwegian examples. (Giusti 1990b, 638n). Evidently, Giusti is responsible for the error. Cf. Giusti 1990a, 140

[51] det vart køpt bök-er fut acheté livre-PL “Il a été acheté des livres” (Lazard 2001 [1994], 234) Error: “bök-er”. Correct: “bøker”.16 Observe the correct “ø” in the otherwise misspelled word “køpt”.

“ö” instead of “ø” is possible, although uncommon. However, ‘o Umlaut’ is clearly Swedish in a context where all other instances of <ø> are written as “ø”, i.e. ‘o slash’, in the same article (or even the same sentence), as shown above, or in the same journal or book:

(3) (---) d. Det var kjöpt en hund it was bought a dog (Hoekstra 1990, 212) Error: “kjöpt”. Correct: “kjøpt”. A quotation from Åfarli 1992, 19, where the o slash character is used.

A more striking piece of evidence is found in sentences such as those in (6), which are mentioned in Askedal (1986). (---)

15 This example has been included since Richards cannot prove that Vangsnes actually mentioned this sentence exactly as it is represented here. 16 As for the "pedagogical" hyphen here and in later examples, I shall leave them without any comment, although I think they are, in general, both useless and misleading.

6 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(6) a. Det ble påstott å komme mange tilhörere it was claimed to come(ACC) many listeners b. Det var ikke lett å få det til å komme så mange tilhörere it was not easy to get it to come so many listeners “it wasn’t easy to manage to get many listeners to come”

(7) a. Det ble påstott at det kommer så mange tilhörere b. Det var ikke let å få det til at det kommer så mange tilhörere (Hoekstra 1990, 213) Errors: “tilhörere”. Correct: “tilhørere”.

(23) *Jeg spörte om det var [AGRP mange fuglar skote/skotne] I asked whether it was many birds shot (Hoekstra 1990, 217)17 Error: “spörte”. The “ö” is incorrect for “ø”. But the correct form of the verb is spurte, “spørte” being a phonetic adoption of the dialect pronunciation.

(12N) Hans sier [(at) Peter har moett Eva] Hans says that Peter has met Eva (Webelhuth 1992, 84) Error: “moett”. Correct: “møtt”.

(64N) [Hvor fort] loep Hans how fast ran Hans (Webelhuth 1992, 123) Error: “loep”. Correct: “løp”.

(---) its Norwegian counterpart 33b) was acceptable to some of our informants, but not all. (---)

(33) a. (---) b. Slike foelsomme politiska fragor har jeg flere studenter som det ikke finnes noen som jeg tror ville våge å prata med om. (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 242) Error: “foelsomme”. Correct: “følsomme”.

(---) in a 1989 talk by Tarald Taraldsen, cited by Giorgi and Longobardi (1991:201).

(---) (25) a. hans boker om syntaks his books of syntax b. bokene hans om syntaks

17 This asterisked sentence has been included since it is debatable whether it is a Norwegian sentence or not, see below.

7 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

book-the-s his of syntax (Safir 1999, 588) Errors: “boker” and “bokene”. Correct: “bøker” and “bøkene”. In Giorgi and Longobardi 1991, the correct letters are used.

(ii) Hvem skjonner du ikke hva sier ? ‘Who understand you not what say?’ (Rizzi 1990, 126n) Error: “skjonner”. Correct: “skjønner”.

(101) Jeg vet om jobber som du bruker mer tid på bilen enn vil ta å utfore ___. (N)

‘I know of a-jobi that you spend more time on the-car than will

take to finish Øi’. (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 270) Error: “utfore”. Correct: “utføre”. UTFORE v is a carpentry term: ‘widen (e.g. a window frame)’. 18

(208) a. Jon apnet doren Jon opened door ‘Jon opened the door’ b. doren apnet seg langsomt door opened REFL slowly ‘The door opened slowly’ (Lidz 1996, 135) Errors: “doren”. Correct: “døren”. (Spelled correctly in Hellan 1988a, 113f.) “doren” means ‘the nail punch’ (of DOR m).

(212) John hadde hort meg snakke nedsettende om seg, og det hadde John had heard me talk depreciatorily about self, and it had de som stod rundt ogs_ those who stood around too ‘John heard me talking depreciatorily about him, and those who were standing around also heard me talking that way about him/them’ (Lidz 1996, 137) Error: “hort”. Correct: “hørt”. (Spelled correctly in Hellan 1988a, 231.)

Lidz (1996, 118) has examples for Norwegian drawn from work by Hellan and by Hestvik.

(---) 67) John hadde hort meg snakke nedsettende om seg, og det hadde de som stod rundt også.

18 Now, this piece of information appears rather farfetched in the present context. However, it may be useful to remind foreign linguists. Especially many American linguists think that slashes, overcircles etc. are just accents that can be omitted. Cf. below.

8 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

John had heard me talk deprecatingly about SIG, and it had those who stood around too “John heard me talking deprecatingly about him, and those who were standing around also heard me talking that way about him/them.” (Safir 2004, 135) Error: “hort”. Correct: “hørt”19 (This example represents a slight modification of Lidz 1996, 137.)

(73) norvégien a. boke-ne vert selde livre-PL deviennent vendu [373]20 b. boke-ne er selde livre-PL sont vendu (Giusti 1998, 372f.) Errors: “boke-ne”. Correct: “bøkene”.

(i) Jens har ingen b∅ker [lese t] Jens hat keine Bücher gelesen.’ (ii) *Jens har ingen b∅ker pr∅d [ä lese t] Jens hat keine Bücher versucht zu lesen.’ (Sabel 1996, 85n)21 The ø characters are taken from a different font set or they represent a substitute character. I.e. either the Greek character with a certain resemblance, ‘phi’, or a zero or not applicable sign. There are no font problems of this kind in Christensen and Taraldsen 1989, 72f.22

(9) Det har ingen lingvist/*en lingvist kjφpt boken. there has no linguist/*a linguist bought a book [16] (10) Jon har ingen böker/* en bok kjφpt.

19 For those who do not belong to the happy few who are able to speak Norwegian (or any Scandinavian language for that matter): This example shows in full the consequences of regarding "ø" as an accented version of "o", where the slash may be omitted at will. "hort" is the past participle of HORE ‘fornicate’, while "hørt" is the participle of HØRE ‘hear’. Which probably was not what Burzio had in mind (Burzio 1996, 37) when he misrepresented Vikner’s Danish example from 1985: at Susani overtalte Anne til [ at hore på {sigi / endei} ] that Susan persuaded Anne to [ that listen to self / her ] ‘that Susani persuaded Anne to listen to heri’ 20 Numbers in square brackets are used to signal a new page in the text quoted. 21 Just like the case of Hoekstra’s sentence above (Hoekstra 1990, 217), this asterisked sentence has been included since it is debatable whether it is more or less correct than the other sentences of the set. 22 Sabel is not to blame for the erroneous "ä" instead of "å", though, since the Italian editor of the Norwegian paper cited (Christensen and Taraldsen 1989) got it all wrong in the first place.

9 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

John has no book/ a book bought (Ingham 2000, 15f.) With one exception, the “ö” (o Umlaut) of (10), the ø is printed with a character taken from a different font set and represents a substitute character: The Greek character ‘phi’. Correct in Christensen 1991, 149.

(29c) at Jon aldri kjφper bφker (Norwegian) That John never buys books (Reuland and Kosmeijer 1991, 55) The ø character is taken from a different font set and represents a substitute character: The Greek character ‘phi’.

(34b) hvilke bφker spurte Jon hvem (som) hadde skrevet? (N) (Fanselow 1991, 223) The ø character is taken from a different font set and represents a substitute character: The Greek character ‘phi’. Correct in Maling and Zaenen 1982, 231.

(48) dette er en type oppgave somi Kalle hevder at om Pelle greide a dies ist ein Typ Aufgabe die Kalle sagt daß ob Pelle Erfolg-hat im

lφse deni/*ti vil vise om han er intelligent lösen sie wird zeigen ob er ist intelligent (Fanselow 1991, 270) The ø character is taken from a different font set and represents a substitute character: The Greek character ‘phi’. Correct in Maling and Zaenen 1982, 235.23

(13a) Ola kan jeg ikke skjφnne hva sier Ola kann ich nicht verstehen was sagt (Fanselow 1991, 326) The ø character is taken from a different font set and represents a substitute character: The Greek character ‘phi’. Correct in Maling and Zaenen 1982, 238 from where the example is taken

(27Da) løbe [meget hurtigt] run very fast (28N) løp [veldig fort] run very fast (Webelhuth 1992, 70) Substitute characters, zeros or ‘not applicable’ signs. No proper ø characters.

(73N) [vant løpet] won the race (Webelhuth 1992, 75) Substitute characters, zeros or ‘not applicable’ signs. No proper ø characters.

23 Note, by the way, that Maling and Zaenen write "greidde" instead of "greide". (Both correct.)

10 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(88N) [ødeleggelsen av byen] destruction of the city (Webelhuth 1992, 76) Substitute characters, zeros or ‘not applicable’ signs. No proper ø characters.

(ii) ?Begynnei vil han nok ikke ti a jobbe begin will he probably not to work ‘lit. begin de will probably not to work’ (Koopman and Szabolcsi: 2000, 230n) Error: “a”. Correct: “å”.

(---)(data from Tarald Taraldsen (---), personal communications).

(8) a. Det kom inn tre menn uten a identifisere seg. it came in three men without (to) identify themselves. (---) ‘There entered three men without identifying themselves.’ (Cardinaletti 1997, 525) Error: “a”. Correct: “å”. Taraldsen would never have written the infinitival marker without an overcircle.

(11) a. (---) b. Dette er en type oppgave som Kalle hevder at om Pelle greidde a løse {den/*Ø} vil vise om han er intelligent. (N) [236] ‘This is the kind of problem that Kalle says that whether Pelle succeeds in solving it will show if he is intelligent.’ (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 235f.)24 Error: “a”. Correct: “å”.

(48) dette er en type oppgave somi Kalle hevder at om Pelle greide a dies ist ein Typ Aufgabe die Kalle sagt daß ob Pelle Erfolg-hat im

lφse deni/*ti vil vise om han er intelligent lösen sie wird zeigen ob er ist intelligent (Fanselow 1991, 270) Error: “a”. Correct: “å”.

(23) (---) (Afarli 1992: 18, 20) (Haider 2000, 46) Error: “Afarli”. Correct: “Åfarli”.25

24 Here and below, those of the examples of Maling and Zaenen 1982 that contain an expression of the { } type will be represented with the elements in succession, separated by a slash, and not as in the original article (one element on top of the other).

11 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(41) Bordetj ble laft en duk pa tj the-table was put a cloth on (Hendrick 1995, 321) Error: “pa”. Correct: “på”.

(i) Vi kledde pa (SC han frakken) (We put on (him the coat)) (Guéron 1990, 164n) Error: “pa”. Correct: “på”.

(45b) na er det apenbart at John har slatt Maria now is EXPL obvious that John has beaten Mary (Brandner 1993, 92) Errors: “na”, “apenbart”, and “slatt”. Correct: “nå”, “åpenbart”, and “slått”.

(44) I gar regnet {det/*Ø}. (N) (Ungrammatical without det) yesterday rained it ‘Yesterday it rained.’ (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 249) Error: “gar”. Correct: “går”.

(51a) hvem tror du at skulle vinne? wer denkst du daß soll gewinnen (51b) i gar regnet det/*e Gestern regnete es (Fanselow 1991, 333) Error: “gar”. Correct: “går” although correctly copied from Maling and Zaenen 1982, 249, cf. above.

(3) a. (---) b. Hvem vet du ikke om Jon sa på kino? (N) c. (---) who do-you-not-know whether John saw at movies ‘Who don’t you know whether John saw at the movies?’ (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 232) Error: “sa”. Correct: “så”. Despite the fact that “på” is spelled correctly. By the way, “sa” means ‘said’, while “så” is the correct verb, ‘saw’ (past form of SE ‘see’.

(208) a. Jon apnet doren Jon opened door ‘Jon opened the door’

25 By chance, Åfarli 1992 does not appear in the bibliography of Haider 2000. By the way, Åfarli is spelled "ÅFARLÍ" in the list of previous publications in the series Linguistik Aktuell at the end of Austin, Engelberg, and Rauh 2004.

12 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

b. doren apnet seg langsomt door opened REFL slowly ‘The door opened slowly’ (Lidz 1996, 135) Errors: “apnet”. Correct: “åpnet”. (Spelled correctly in Hellan 1988a, 113f.)

(iii) (---) d. *… at han tidlig vaakner opp. ‘that he early wakes up.’ e. … at han vaakner opp tidlig. (Cinque 1999:215 n.7) Errors: “vaakner”. Correct: “våkner”.

(4) a. Eng Peter went to the movies, but I don’t know who with. Nor Per har gaatt paa kino, men jeg vet ikke hvem med. (Merchant 2000, 1) Errors: “gaatt”, “paa”. Correct: “gått”, “på”.

(2.116) Kjenner du han gammelvaktmesteren paa huset? know you he old.custodian-DEF at house.DEF ‘Do you know the old custodian at the house?.’ (Larson 2005, 57) Error: “paa”. Correct: “på”.

28 c) Hvilke malerierj har ikke Petter noen veggj ȧ henge topp ej p ȧ ej which paintings has not Peter any wall to hang up on (Haider 1993, 643) Errors: “ȧ” and “pȧ”. Correct: “å” and “på”. 26 Correct in Haider’s source: Engdahl 1988b, 19.27

[5] det forsvann ei bok frḁ hyll-a il disparaître/PAS un livre de rayon-ART2 “Il a disparu un livre du rayon” (Lazard 2001 [1994], 220) Error: “frḁ”. Correct: “frå”.28

(212) John hadde hort meg snakke nedsettende om seg, og det hadde John had heard me talk depreciatorily about self, and it had de som stod rundt ogs_ those who stood around too

26 Haider’s next example, (29a) is correct. 27 Engdahl’s example, (32), is itself an extremely odd sentence. However, it has been taken from an article written by a Norwegian linguist, Christensen 1982, 79. 28 Correct in the sentence repeated in Lazard 2001 [1994], 234.

13 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

‘John heard me talking depreciatorily about him, and those who were standing around also heard me talking that way about him/them’ (Lidz 1996, 137) Error: “ogs_”. Correct: “også”. (Spelled correctly in Hellan 1988a, 231.)

Consider the following Norwegian sentences (Everaert 1986; Hestvik 1990): (223) (---)

c. Johni bad Maritj se pF segi/*j John made Mary look at self ‘John made Mary look at him’ (Lidz 1996, 142) Error: “pF”. Correct: “på”. (This author is unable to find this sentence in Everaert 1986.)

(---) Norwegian has several such auxiliaries : å stă, å sitte, å ligge, å gå. (Avram 1987, 210) Error: “stă”. Correct: “stå”. Looks like a simple misspelling, given the other correct tokens of ‘a overcircle’.

In a discussion of the properties of sentences such as “Vi lar fangene henge”, literally “We let the prisoners hang”, i.e. ‘We ordered the prisoners to be hanged’, one finds the following contention:

This is the case for English make, Norwegian lå and French laisser. (Hoekstra and Guéron 2004, 164)

Which, on the face of it, looks pretty much like some sort of “reversed” Norwegian character problem.29 The infinitive of present “lar” is “la”. However, one later remark in the same paper indicates that the authors actually think that “lå” is the infinitive of “lar”:

The difference between these Scandinavian languages can be explained by the hypothesis that la/lå has to assign structural case in Danish, may assign it in Norwegian and cannot assign it in Swedish. (Hoekstra and Guéron 2004, 166)

In the corresponding verb in Swedish is LÅTA. Norwegian LA has an alternative LATE. However, Norwegian “lå” has only one interpretation: as the past form of LIGGE ‘lie’.

29 Or hypercorrection.

14 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Word level errors

Accidental errors

There is no point in distinguishing between orthographic errors and other errors at word level in this inventory. Apparently, many of the authors have a rather restricted competence as far as the Norwegian language is concerned – if any. So, the notion of orthographic error makes no sense at all. In this paragraph, I have gathered all errors at word level without any clear cause, e.g. interference. I am going to refer to them as accidental errors.30

(14) a. [NP hans [syntaks bøker]] his syntax books

b. [DP [syntaks bøke]i-ne [NP hans ti]] syntax books-the his (Ackema and Neeleman 2002, 101) Errors: No blank between “syntaks” and “bøker”. SYNTAKSBOK (plural indefinite form syntaksbøker, definite form syntaksbøkene) is a compound word.

(52) (---)

c. [NP hans [syntaks bøker]] his syntax books

d. [DP [syntaks bøke]i-ne [NP hans ti]] syntax books-the his (Ackema and Neeleman 2004, 44) Errors: No blanks between “syntaks” and “bøker” or “bøkene”. SYNTAKSBOK (plural indefinite form syntaksbøker, plural definite form syntaksbøkene) is a compound word. The analytic value of “bøke” in [syntaks bøke]i-ne” is unknown to the present author given that the paradigm goes “bok” - “boka”/”boken” - “bøker” - “bøkene”. Its only motivation seems to be as a sequence of the first four characters identical in all plural forms of the lexeme.

(i) Hunden vart (ut) sparka (ut) [Norw.] dog-the was (out) kicked (out) (ii) Vi har (*ut) sparka (ut) hunden (ut) Wehave (out) kicked (out) dog-the (out) (Haider 1997, 18n) Errors: “(ut) sparka”. Correct: “(ut)sparka”, i.e. either “utsparka” or “sparka ut”. Incorrect copy of Åfarli 1985, 89.31

30 On closer inspection, this paragraph contains orthographic errors, morphological errors, completely distorted words (probably copying errors of various degrees (due to copying history), true accidental errors and sheer misprints. The extension of the latter category indicates a serious lack of proofreading – probably even at manuscript level. 31 Observe that the language label is [Norw.] , not [Nor.] as elsewhere in Haider’s article.

15 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(8) [NP bok en til Per ] book the to Per ‘Peter’s book’ (Young 1988, 118) Error: “bok en”. Correct: “boken”.

(11) [NP bok en hans ] book the his(gen) ‘his book’ (Young 1988, 118) Error: “bok en”. Correct: “boken”.32

(2.13) Norwegian (a) (Hellan 1991: 33) Jon skammet seg/*segselv. Jon shamed self/self self ‘Jon was ashamed.’ (b) (Hellan 1988) Jon foraktet *seg/segselv. Jon despises self/self self ‘Jon despises himself.’ (Huang 2000, 20) Errors: “segselv”. Correct: “seg selv”. “Jon skammet seg” is a correct sentence (Hellan 1991, 33). “Jon foraktet seg selv.” is a correct sentence too and “*Jon foraktet seg” contains no spelling errors. (Hellan 1988a, 104))

(211) a. (---) b. Jon wasket segselv bedre enn Per Jon washed himself better than Peter ‘Jon washed himself better than Peter washed himself’ ‘Jon washed himself better than Peter washed him’ (Lidz 1996, 136) Error: “segselv”. Correct: “seg selv”. Safir quotes the same examples – correctly – adding “Lidz (1996:118) has examples for Norwegian drawn from work by Hellan and by Hestvik.” (Safir 2004, 135)

(37) (---) c. Jeg har satt ham en hat på hodet (Hoekstra 1995, 127) Error: “hat”. Correct: “hatt”.33

32 This error is repeated in Young’s asterisked example (10). 33 HAT means ‘hate’, while HATT means ‘hat’.

16 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Holmberg (1997, p.c.) observes that in Mainland Scandinavian, a participial main verb can appear in clause-initial position, acting as the [124] ‘first constituent’ for ‘verb-second’ (V2).

(12) (?) Lest har hun den sikkert, men har hun skjønnt noe av den? read has she it surely but has she understood anything of it “She has surely READ it, but has she understood any of it?” (Norwegian) (Toyoshima 2001, 123f) Error: “skjønnt”. Correct: “skjønt”.

(68) a. Elvis har [forlat bygninga]. (Nor) Elvis has left the-building (---) c. [Forlat bygninga] har Elvis allerede. (Nor) left the.building has Elvis already (---) (71) a. At Elvis har forlat bygninga tror jeg ikke. (Nor) that Elvis has left the.building believe I not (Svenonius 1994, 1/56) Errors: “forlat”. Correct: “forlatt”.

[5’] bok-a forsvan frå hylla livre-ART “Le livre a disparu du rayon” (Lazard 2001 [1994], 220) Error: “forsvan”. Correct: “forsvann”.

[56] det komm ein student på grunn av sine karakterar vint un étudiant à cause de son/REFL note “Il est venu un étudiant au sujet de sa note” (Lazard 2001 [1994], 236) Error: “komm”. Correct: “kom”.

(29) a. Mannen har drukket vinnen opp the.man has drunk wine PART

17 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

b. Mannen har drukket opp vinnen the.man has drunk PART wine ‘The man has drunk up the wine’ (Norwegian; Svenonius 1996: 10) (Zeller 2001, 285) Errors: “vinnen”. Correct: “vinen”, which is spelled correctly in Svenonius 1996a, 11.

(1) a. Mannen har drukket opp vinnen the.man has drunk up the. wine b. Mannen har drukket vinnen opp the.man has drunk the.wine up ‘The man has drunk up the wine’ (Svenonius 1996a: 10) (Zeller 2002, 234) Errors: “vinnen”. Correct: “vinen”, which is spelled correctly in Svenonius 1996a, 11.

(9) b. John synnes ham [ vaere en god venn] (Hoekstra 1995, 121) Error: “synnes”. Correct: “synes”.

(225) a. A: Kommer Jens til festen for å see Marit? comes Jens to the.party for to see Mary? (Craenenbroeck 2004, 113) Error: “see”. Correct: “se”. In a footnote at the very beginning of the subsection, Øystein Nilsen is thanked “for his help with the Eastern Norwegian data”.

(51) (---) c. Det infannt seg en dame på kontoret. it appeared REFL a lady on office-the ‘A lady appeared in the office.’ (Bergeton 2004, 254) Error “infannt”. Correct: “innfant”. (Correct in Lødrup 1999, 367 - which is the source quoted.)

(---), as for example in Norwegian Hann sier/tror at hann kommer ‘He says/believes that he’ll come.’ (Kemmer 2002, 182) Errors: “Hann” and “hann”. Correct: “Han” and “han”.

(13) (Norw. (Bokmål) (ia) Det regner. (*Regner. aber: Hann regner.) (Es regnet.) (Lenerz 1985, 111)

18 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Error: “Hann”. Correct: “Han”.34

[51] det vart køpt bök-er fut acheté livre-PL “Il a été acheté des livres” (Lazard 2001 [1994], 234) Error: “køpt”. Correct: “kjøpt”.

(26) (---) b. Det er den skitne boken, som laereren spurte hvem jeg sa hadde legt (*den) igjen på pullen. (---) ‘This is the dirty book that the teacher asked who I said had left (it) behind on the desk.’ (Maling 1978a, 87) Errors: “legt” and “pullen”. Correct: “lagt” and “pulten”. “pullen” means ‘the crown (of a hat’ (of PULL m).

(78)a. Joni bad oss forsakte segi asked us despise SEG Jon asked us to despise him (Déchaine and Manfredi 1994, 245) Error: “forsakte”. Correct: “forakte”.35

(108) Det vil altlid være dem som mener noe annet. it will always be those-ACC who think something different (Hoekstra and Mulder 1990, 49) Error: “altlid”. Correct: “alltid”.

(5) Det vil altid vaere dem som sier noe annet it will always be those(ACC) who say something different (Hoekstra 1990, 213) Error: “altid”. Correct: “alltid”.

(52) Det vil altid være dem som mener noe annet. it(EXPL) will always be thoseACC who think something different (Askedal 1986) (den Dikken and Næss 1993, 327) Error: “altid”. Correct: “alltid”. Askedal 1986, 31 contains the correct sentence.36

34 In a footnote following the observation “Das Norwegische (Bokmål) und das Dãnische vertreten dagegen das andere Extrem: Expletive Formen treten sowohl satzeinleitend wie in nicht-erster Position auf:”: “Von einigen “frozen forms” wie hvis muligt er u.a. abgesehen, (---).” Neither the –t suffix nor the word order is Norwegian. In the bibliography, by the way, the title of Svein Lie’s book is spelled Inføring i norsk syntaks. Correct: “Innføring”. 35 Correct in Hellan 1988, 104, although his translation is different: “Jon asked us despise himself”.

19 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(29) Norwegian

a. Johni liker [NP hans*i/j kohne] J likes his wife (Pérez-Leroux and Roeper 1999, 937) Error: “kohne”. Correct: “kone”.

(68) Vi vet at noen snakket med Marit, men vi vit ikke hvem (*som) [e]. ‘We know that someone talked with Mary, but we don’t know who.’ (Lobeck 1995, 60) Error: “vit”. Correct: “vet” or “veit”.

(67) (---) b. Vi vet [hvem (*som) [Marit snakker met t]] CP IP ‘We know who that Mary talks with’ (Lobeck 1995, 59) Error: “met”. Correct: “med”.

Lobeck makes a similar point based on the distribution of the complementizer som in Norwegian, which appears obligatorily in embedded questions with subject extraction, as in (89a) (modified slightly from Rizzi 1990: 57; see also Taraldsen 1986 and Vikner 1991; likewise for Danish der in spoken registers, if der is indeed in C15):

(89) a Vi vet hvem *(som) snakker met Marit. [Norwegian] b Vi ved hvem ??(der) snakker med Marit. [Danish] we know who C0 talks with Marit ‘We know who is talking with Marit.’

(---)

(90) a Noen snakker met Marit, men vi vet ikke b En eller anden snakker med Marit, men vi ved ikke someone talks with Marit but we know not hvem (*som). [Norwegian] hvem (*der). [Danish] who C0 (Merchant 2001, 68) Errors: “met”. Correct: “med”. (89) – including the error - appears to have Lobeck 1995 as its origin (Lobeck 1995, 60?). The corresponding sentence in Rizzi 1990, 57 is correct. Taraldsen 1986 does not contain these two sentences.37

36 In their bibliography, Askedal’s name is spelled incorrectly, "Jan" instead of "Jon". 37 Remark the correspondence between Norwegian "Noen" and Danish "En eller anden" in (90). Danish "Nogen" seems more natural. It is also worthwhile noting that the Danish preposition is spelled correctly, "med".

20 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Hestvik argues that (---) nongenerically interpreted personal pronouns in English do not permit restrictive modification as freely as is possible in Norwegian (Hestvik 1992: 570). i. *he who she married ii han som hun gifted seg med he who she married REFL with (Safir 2004, 269n) Error: “gifted”. Correct: “giftet”. (Correct in Hestvik 1992: 570.)

b. Ikkje gjær det!! not do-IMP it (Platzack and Rosengren 1997, 218n) Errors: “gjær”. Correct: “gjør” or “gjer” are alternative imperative forms of Ny- norsk GJØRE/GJERE. (“Ikkje” is an unambiguous indicator of Nynorsk.).38

(41) Bordetj ble laft en duk pa tj the-table was put a cloth on (Hendrick 1995, 321) Error: “laft”. Correct: “lagt”.

(23) (---)

c. at breveti ble klisteret frimerker på ei that letter-the was pasted stamps on ‘the letter was pasted stamps on’ (Norwegian: Taraldsen 1979) (Afarli 1992: 18, 20)

d. at frimerkeri ble klisteret ei på brevet that stamps were pasted on the letter e. at det ble klisteret frimerker på brevet (Haider 2000, 46) Errors: “klisteret”. Correct: “klistret”.39

Anti-subject orientation (---) is also found in Danish ham (selv), (---) Norwegian ham (self), and Russian ego. (Büring 2005, 60) Error: “self”. Correct: “selv”.

(26 a) Olaj kan jeg ikke skønne

[hvaj ej sier ej]

(26 b) *Olaj I don’t understand

38 "gjær" is present of GJÆRE ‘ferment’ or ‘mitre’. 39 In Taraldsen’s similar (but not identical) sentence, "klistret" is spelled correctly. (klisteret is the definite form singular of KLISTER n.) By the way, no similar sentence can be found in Åfarli 1992, 18 and 20, only a sentence with similar syntax and different lexical items. Why "brevet" in d. is glossed as ‘the letter’ instead of "letter-the" in c. begs an explanation.

21 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

[whatj ej says ej] (Engdahl 1988a, 15) (Haider 1993, 643) Error: “skønne”. Correct: “skjønne”. Engdahl 1988b, 15 contains the correct form “skjønne”.

28 c) Hvilke malerierj har ikke Petter noen

veggj ȧ henge topp ej pȧ ej which paintings has not Peter any wall to hang up on (Haider 1993, 643) Error: “topp”. Correct: “opp”. Correct in Haider’s source: Engdahl 1988b, 19.

(5.34) (---)

b. jeg er på jekt etter [et bilde av seg selvi]i

I am hunting for [a picture of itselfi]i (Dalrymple 1993, 165) Error: “jekt”. Correct: “jakt”.40

(71) a. Norwegian Per / Maria si-t hus Per / Maria RFL.POSS-N.SG houseN ‘Per’s/Maria’s house’ (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2003, 669) Error: “si-t”. Correct: “sitt”.

(169) a. Jeg lurer på hvem * (som) [t ser mest suensk ut]. I wonder who that looks most Swedish out (---)” (Taraldsen 1978:633-634) (Ogawa 2001, 87) Error: “suensk”. Correct: “svensk”.41

(21) a. Noen bjørne har angript sauen. [No] Some bears have attacked the sheep (Jonas 1996, 60) Errors: “bjørne” and “angript”. Correct: “bjørner” or “angrepet” (past participle of ANGRIPE). “bjørne” may also be seen as the result of interference from Danish.

(ii) Jens har ?*mange/ ingen bøkuri lese ti . [No] Jens has many /no books read

40 Similar to (39) d. of Hellan 1988a, 217: “Jeg er på jakt etter et bilde av seg selv.” The deeper meaning of "itselfi" is not known by this author. JEKT f is an ancient small type of wooden cargo ship. 41 (169) a is liable to be some sort of mixture of Taraldsen’s examples (46) and (47). (Taraldsen 1978b, 633.) However, Taraldsen’s paper contains only the correct form.

22 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(Jonas 1996, 105) Error: “bøkur”. Correct: “bøker”. Christensen and Taraldsen (1991, 72) is quoted as a source. However, their example contains no error.

(15) Det er politimannen som jeg lurer på hvilke piker dommeren vill vita hvilke droger {han/*Ø} trodde {de/*Ø} hadde solgt {Ø/*den} till barne. (N)

‘This is the policemani that I wonder which girlsj the judge will

want to know which drugsk hei thought theyj had sold ___k to the children.’ (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 237) Error: “barne”. Correct: “barnet” singular definite form or “barna” plural definite form.

Repeated later in the same article as:

(85) a. Det er politimannen som jeg lurer på hvilke piker dommeren vill vite hvilke droger {*Ø/han} trodde {*Ø/de} hadde solgt {*den/Ø} til barne. (N)

‘This is the policeman1 that I wonder which girls2 the judge

will want to know which drugs3 he1 thought they2 had

sold ___3 to the children.’ (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 265) Error: “barne”. Correct: “barnet” singular definite form or “barna” plural definite form.42

(62) Jag kjenner en melodie som ingen visste hvem skrev. (N) ‘I know a song that nobody remembers who wrote.’ (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 257) Error: “melodie”. Correct: “melodi”.

(51) a. (---) b. Jeg liker ikke han med langt haring. I like not him with long hair ‘I don’t like him with long hair.’39

c. *Jeg like han med langt haring ikke. I like him with long hair not

d. *Jeg liker han ikke med langt haring. i like him not with long hair (Koopman 1999, 119)

42 Curiosities: The entities within the brackets have swapped positions in the last example, and the indexation has changed from letters to numbers.

23 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Error: “haring”. Correct: “hår” (neuter gender). (Cf. the correct concord “langt” adjective neuter.) Koopman’s footnote 37 right above the quoted examples is interesting:

37 Thanks to Arild Hestvik for the examples. (Koopman 1999, 128n) I take it for granted that Arild Hestvik has not seen the final proofs of the paper. One possible explanation for the errors would be the author’s misinterpretation of an instruction how to write ‘a overcircle’: “a ring”. The code Å used in html format is equally a plausible candidate as the source of the confusion.

(51) a. (---) b. Jeg liker ikke han med langt haring I like not him with long hair “*I do not like him with long hair.”39 [105] c. * Jeg liker han med langt haring ikke I like him with long hair not

d. * Jeg liker han ikke med langt haring i like him not with long hair (Koopman 2000, 104f.) Error: “haring”. Correct: “hår” (neuter gender). (Cf. the correct concord “langt” adjective neuter.)

(i) ?Villeti hadde han nok ikke ti gidd opp. wanted has he probably not given up ‘lit. wanted he has probably not to give up’ (Koopman and Szabolcsi: 2000, 230n) Error: “gidd”. Correct: “gitt”.

(84) kongen av Englands skokke the king of England’s beard (Giorgi and Longobardi 1991, 147) Error: “skokke”. The Norwegian word for English BEARD is SKJEGG, with hardly any resemblance at all to “skokke”. In fact, “skokke” has no meaning at all in Norwegian.43

(6.29) b. Røykeforbudet brøt en student vanligvis unansett. the.smoking ban broke a student usually anyway ‘A student usually violated the smoking ban anyway.’

43 A conjecture would be that the original Norwegian sentence that Giorgi and Longobardi picked up some- where, contains the word KOKKE ‘female cook’ or, less probable, SKOKK ‘group (pejorative sense)’.

24 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(Engels 2004, 275) Error: “unansett”. Correct: “uansett”. (Correct in Svenonius 2002a, 225 from where this example is quoted.)

12 Other languages also mark this difference. In Norwegian, for instance, (8a) would translate as ‘Pavarotti tror at sine bokser brenner’ while (8b) would translate as ‘Pavarotti at haus bokser brenner’. (Corazza 2004, 348n) Errors: “bokser” (twice) and “haus”. Correct “bukser” and “hans”. In the last sentence, the finite verb, “tror” ‘believes’ is missing.”bokser” means ‘boxes’ (of BOKS m), HAUS m means ‘skull’.

(6) a. Det ble påstott å komme mange tilhörere it was claimed to come(ACC) many listeners (---) (7) a. Det ble påstott at det kommer så mange tilhörere b. Det var ikke let å få det til at det kommer så mange tilhörere (---) (8) a. Det ble påstott å ha repariert bilen it was claimed to have repaired the car” b. Det var ikke lett å få det til å repariere bilen it was not easy to get it to to repair the car (Hoekstra 1990, 213) Errors: “påstott”, “let”, “repariert”, and “repariere”. Correct: “alltid”, “påstått”, “lett”, “reparert”, and “reparere”. LET means ‘colour’. “repariert” and “repariere” are possibly due to interference from Dutch or German.

(33) Dette er de diktene som laererin spurte oss hvem vi trodde hadde skrivet. (N) (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 245) Error: “laererin “. Correct: “læreren”. -EN is the masculine definite postposed article, cf. a similar sentence represented in Maling 1978a, 87 (above).

Consider, for example, the following Norwegian example from Maling/Zaenen(1981):

(56) Dette er de diktene som laererin spurte oss [hvem vi trodde hadde skrevet] These are the poems COMP teacher asked us who we thought had written ‘These are the poems that the teacher asked us who we thought had written.’ (Borsley 1993, 578) As for “Maling/Zaenen(1981)”, cf. above. Error: “laererin”. Correct: “læreren”. Correct copy, incorrect morphology: -EN is the masculine definite postposed article.

(77b) desse konstruksjonar trur jeg at er meir naturlege uttrykksmåta diese Konstruktionen denke ich daß sind mehr natürliche Ausdrucksmittel

25 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(Fanselow 1991, 338) Error “uttrykksmåta”. Correct: “uttrykksmåtar”. An inexact copy of Engdahl 1988a, 81

Interference?

The most conspicuous cause of errors appears to be interference, and, by far, the most important source of interference is Swedish, in some cases because the author in question actually is Swedish. In general, the reason seems to be that a certain knowledge of Swedish is more common among foreign linguists. Still, some of them may have serious problems determining what is Swedish and what is Norwegian:

(8) (---) Norwegian Jeg leste dem ikke alla. ‘I read them not all.’ (Deprez 1994, 105) Error: “alla”. Correct: “alle”. (Swedish “alla”.) In Deprez’ article, there are a number of Scandinavian sentences - hardly any without one or more misspelled words.

(12) (---) c. Vi leste ikke artikkeln. d. *Vi leste artikkeln ikke. we read (the papers) not (the papers) (Deprez 1994, 106) Error: “artikkeln”. Correct: “artikkelen”. (Swedish “artikeln”.)

(2a) i dag har *(det) kommit månge lingvister hit (Norw) (Brandner 1993, 73) Hardly a Norwegian, “(Norw)”, sentence. This is (mostly) Swedish. Errors: “kommit” and “månge”. Correct: “kommet” and “mange”. (Swedish: “kommit” and “många”.)

(45a) i dag har det kommet månge lingvister hit today have EXPL arrived many linguists here ‘there have arrived many linguists here today’ (Brandner 1993, 92) Similar to (2a) of Brandner 1993, 73, but felt to be more Norwegian because of “kommet”. Error: “månge”. Correct: “mange”. (Swedish “många”.)

(71a) fordi det har arbeidet en mann på kontoret hver aften (Swe) because EXPL has worked a man in the office

26 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

every night ‘because a man has worked in the office every night (71b) därför att det har arbetat en mann i byrån varje afton (Norw) because that EXPL has worked a man in the office every night ‘because a man has worked in the office every night’ (Brandner 1993, 103) Apparently, the difference between Norwegian and Swedish is a major problem for Brandner: (71a) is not Swedish as indicated by means of “(Swe)”. It is Nor- wegian. On the other hand, (71b) is not Norwegian as indicated, cf. “(Norw)”, but Swedish. 44 This is more than a misplaced language label, cf. Brandner 1993, 92 above. Of minor importance: “aften” may be the result of interference from Swedish AFTON, but may also simply be the slightly archaic Norwegian word AFTEN.

Standard Norwegian (Koptjevskaja-Tamm forthc.) Hatt-en till mann-en hat- DEF to man- DEF ‘the man’s hat’ (Heine and Kuteva 2002, 104) Error: “till”. Correct: “til”. (Swedish “till”.)45

(15) Det er politimannen som jeg lurer på hvilke piker dommeren vill vita hvilke droger {han/*Ø} trodde {de/*Ø} hadde solgt {Ø/*den} till barne. (N)

‘This is the policemani that I wonder which girlsj the judge will

want to know which drugsk hei thought theyj had sold ___k to the children.’ (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 237) Errors: “vill”, “vita”, “droger”, and “till”. Correct: “vil”, “vite”, “stoff”,46 and “til”. (Swedish “vill”, “veta”, “droger”, and “till”.) Repeated later in the same article as:

(85) a. Det er politimannen som jeg lurer på hvilke piker dommeren vill vite hvilke droger {*Ø/han} trodde {*Ø/de} hadde solgt {*den/Ø} til barne. (N)

‘This is the policeman1 that I wonder which girls2 the judge

will want to know which drugs3 he1 thought they2 had

sold ___3 to the children.’

44 This is no coincidence or singular typing error, as may be seen from the next excerpt. 45 "Koptjevskaja-Tamm forthc." must refer to Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2003, where the word is spelled correctly (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2003, 660). 46 With the due changes in the rest of the sentence, e.g. "hva for/slags" instead of "hvilke", which a little peculiar anyway.

27 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(Maling and Zaenen 1982, 265) Errors: “vill” and “droger”. Correct: “vil” and “stoff”. Note that “hvilke [droger]” as well as “hvilke [droger]” in the example above, is unidiomatic. “hva for/slags stoff” (singular) would be better.47

(85) a. (---) b. Her er pusher som jeg lurer på hvilke piker dommeren vill vite hvilka stoffer folk hørte ham snakker med dem om Ø.

‘Here is the pusher1 that I wonder which girls2 the judge will

want to know which things3 people heard him1 talk with

them2 about Ø3.’ (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 265) Errors: “vill” and “hvilka”. Correct: “vil” and “hvilke”. (Swedish “vill” and “vilka”.) Additionally, “stoffer” (indefinite plural) is translated as “things”. There is a slang reading of STOFF as ‘thing’. In the current case, however, the only possible meaning is ‘drugs’. But “hvilka stoffer” is unidiomatic.48 The correct form is “hvilke stoff” or better: “hva for/slags stoff” (singular), cf. above.

(26) Montague kan jeg ikke huske om {*han/Ø} døde i Kalifornia (N) ‘Montague I can’t remember if (*he) died in California.’ (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 239) Error: “Kalifornia”. Correct: “California “. (Swedish “Kalifornien”.)

(62) Jag kjenner en melodie som ingen visste hvem skrev. (N) ‘I know a song that nobody remembers who wrote.’ (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 257) Error: “Jag”. Correct: “Jeg”. (Swedish “jag”.)

(72) a. (---) b. Kalle, jeg liker inte den tullingen! (N) (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 261) Error: “inte”. Correct: “ikke”. (Swedish “inte”.)

(33) a. (---) b. Slike foelsomme politiska fragor har jeg flere studenter som det ikke finnes noen som jeg tror ville våge å prata med om. (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 242) Errors: “politiska “ and “fragor”. Correct: “politiske” and “spørsmål”. (Swedish “politiska frågor”.) Also, the equivalent of Norwegian VÅGE, VÅGA, is far more common in Swedish than in Norwegian, where it has a solemn ring.

47 Note that the order of the constituents within the curly brackets have swapped. 48 Even if one doesn’t mind that "hvilka" is an error.

28 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(34) Dette er de diktene som laererin spurte oss hvem vi trodde hadde skrivet. (N) (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 245) Error: “skrivet”. Correct: “skrevet”. (Swedish “skrivit”.)

(105) a. Denne bokeni er jag sikker på at _i kom ut i Russland. this book I am sure that came out in Russia (---) [123] (---)

d. Denne forfattareni husker jeg ikke hvaj _i

this authori I don’t remember what

har oversatt _j til norsk. has translated to Norwegian (Engdahl 1986, 122f.) Errors: “Jag” and “forfattaren”. Correct: “Jeg” and “forfatteren”. (Swedish “jag” and “författaren”.)49

(2.19) (---) [34] e. Jag anser [ meg *(å) ha rett] I think me have right (Norwegian) (---) ‘I believe myself to be right.’ Platzack (1986, 218) (Watanabe 1996, 33f) Error: “Jag”. Correct: “Jeg”. (Swedish “jag”.)50

(---); but in subordinate clauses: vi ar redd for at bussen ikke kommer “we fear the bus will not come”, (---). (Ramat 1987, 183) Error: “ar”. Correct: “er”. (Swedish “är”.)51

C.f. Dahl (1979: 95): (---) Norw. Jeg vet ikke hvorfor jeg ar så trist ‘I don’t know why I’m so sad’ (---). (Bernini and Ramat 1996, 223) Error: “ar”. Correct: “er”. (Swedish “är”.)52

(31) Norwegian Spikeren ligger på plankan.

49 Note that “jag” occurs in (105) a. only. The correct form “jeg” is found in (105) d. I take it for granted that (105) d. is intended as Bokmål, given the markers "husker", "jeg", "ikke", "hva", "oversatt". ("forfattaren" is identical to the Nynorsk form corresponding to Bokmål "forfatteren".) 50 Correct in Platzack 1986, 218. 51 Ramat gives what appears to be a clear reference to Dahl, Östen: 1979, “Typology of sentence negation”. Linguistics 17, 79-106. However, no explicit Norwegian example is given at the page indicated (95). 52 Same as above.

29 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

nail the lie 3SG PRES on board the ‘The nail is on the board.’ (Kuteva 1999, 201) Error: “plankan”. Correct: “planken”. (Swedish “plankan”.)

(20) Det finns substantivforekomster vi ikke engang vet it exists noun occurrences we not even know [om e skall klassifiseres som mengdetermer eller ikke.] if shall classify-PASS as mass terms or not ‘There are noun occurrences that we don’t even know if they should be classified as mass terms or not.’ (Engdahl 1985, 13) Errors: “finns” and “skall”. Correct: “fins”/”finnes” and “skal”. (Swedish “finns” and “skall”.)

f. Kva for sange vart det sunge den kvellen? which songs was EX sung-N.SG that night Which songs were sung that night? (Norwegian 2) (Holmberg 2002, 108) Error: “kvellen”. Correct: “kvelden”. (Swedish “kvällen”.) This example contains another error as well: “sange”. Correct: “songar”. “sange” is Danish. There is also a possibility that it is a simple spelling error for “sanger”. However, the sentence is in the written standard Nynorsk (“Norwegian 2” in Holmberg’s notation), where “songar” is obligatory. “sanger” is Bokmål, the other written Nor- wegian standard.

(35) Det kan jeg ikke sie noe om [hvordan e må gjøres] it can I not say something about how ought do-PASS [uten å studere p nærmere.] without to study closer ‘That I can’t say anything about how it should be done without studying it more closely.’ (Engdahl 1985, 17) Error: “sie”. Correct: “si”. (Swedish “säga”, Danish “sige”.)

(14) a. Hun har hengt billedet opp på veggen. (Norwegian) she has hung picture-the up on wall-the b. Hun har hengt opp billedet på veggen. (Norwegian) she has hung up picture-the on wall-the (Holmberg and Platzack 2005, 428 Norwegian, “billedet” is uncontroversially an archaism and does not conform to official orthography. (Danish “billedet”.)

(25) (---) b. Dette er de dikte, som laereren spurte hvem vi trodde hadde skrevet (*dem).

30 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(---) ‘These are the poems that the teacher asked (us) who we thought wrote (them).’ (Maling 1978a, 87) Error: “dikte”. Correct possibly “dikt” (indefinite plural) or, preferably, “diktene” or “dikta” (definite plural).53 (Danish “digte”.)54

(135) (---)

b. Barnai ble overrakt [VP (t’i) [VP blomsterne [V’ ti]]]

the childrennom PASS handed the flowersacc (---)

d. Blomsternei ble overrakt [VP barnaj [VP ti [V’ tj]]]

the flowersnom PASS handed the childrendat (Müller 1995b, 243) Errors: “blomsterne”. Correct: “blomstene”. (Danish “blomsterne”.)55

(38) (---) b. Norwegian Min søster er like pen som dig. c. Danish Min søster er lige så smuk som dig. ‘My sister is as pretty as you.’ (Haspelmath and Buchholz 1998, 294) Error: “dig”. Correct “deg”. (Danish “dig”.)56 Also note “så” in the Danish c. sentence. This word might as well have appeared in the Norwegian sentence.

(3) (---) c. Det bli troet at Jon ikke var på kontoret it was believed that John not was in the office (Hoekstra 1990, 212) Error: “troet”. Correct: “trodd”. (Danish “troet”.)

(i) a. Jeg har ingeni/ (No) I have no one/

*hennei set ti. *her seen “I haven’t seen anyone.” (Thráinsson 2001, 197) Error: “set”. Correct “sett”. (Danish “set”.)

53 In this particular phrase, where “double determination” is almost obligatory. 54 The Danish hypothesis is supported by a corresponding Danish example found in Maling and Zaenen 1981: (iii) Her er de digte, som laereren spurgte os, hvem vi troede, (der) havde skrevet dem. Here are the poems that the teacher asked us who we thought had written them. (Maling and Zaenen 1981, 276.) 55 Corresponds to correctly spelled sentences in Christensen 1982 and e.g. Larson 1988, 356n. 56 Theoretically, Swedish is another possible source, since "sig" is the correct Swedish form too. Still, the proximity of the Danish sentence makes it more probable that Danish is the source of the interference.

31 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(i) a. *Etter dette slo Guri Per After this beat Guri Per altid I sjakk. always in chess (---) (Thráinsson 2001, 199) Error: “altid”. Correct “alltid”. (Danish “altid”.)57

The term scrambling has since been used to describe phenomena as diverse as Object Shift found in Scandinavian languages such as Norwegian (2):

(2) a. Igar laeste han uden tviv ikke dem yesterday read he without doubt not them

b. Igar laeste han demi uden tviv ikke ti yesterday read he them without doubt not ‘Yesterday, without a doubt, he didn’t read them’ (Vikner 1994) (---). (van Gelderen 2003, 4) This is not Norwegian. From a strictly morphological point of view, this is Danish.58 Observe the numerous Danish errors: “Igar”, “laeste”, “tviv”. Correct Danish: “Igår”, “læste”, and “tvivl”. The correct Danish sentence b. is given in Vikner’s article, where no Norwegian examples can be found: I går læste han [ I º t] [VP dem [VP uden tvivl [VP ikke [VP t t ]]]] (Vikner 1994, 487) Vikner’s article does not contain a direct source of the van Gelderen’s a. sentence.) b. Desse konstruksjonar trur eg at t er meir naturlege uttryksmåtar. These constructions think I that are more natural expressions (from Engdahl 1984:12, (29)) (Vikner 1995, 60) Error: “uttryksmåtar”. Correct: “uttrykksmåtar”. (Danish “udtryksmåder”.)

(41) (---) d. Hann spiste tørrfisken/den opp. (Thráinsson 2001, 166) Error: “Hann”. Correct “Han”. (Icelandic “hann”.)59

(19) a. Han skar kjøttet up rått [Nor.] he cuts meat-the up raw

57 As for the asterisk, see below. 58 Which is why this example is not listed in the Norwegian characters’ section. 59 Possibly a misprint, since "Han" is spelled correctly in the previous example, (40).

32 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

b. Han skar up kjøttet rått c. */??Han skar kjøttet rått up (---)” (Haider 1997, 11) Errors: “up”. Correct: “opp”. Theoretically, this could be the result of interference from archaic Nynorsk or modern Swedish “upp”. Yet, it seems more natural to track this error back to English.

(14) Cîinii latră. Hundene barker. (Avram 1987, 209) Error: “barker”. Correct: “gjør”. The influence from English is obvious. (Norwe- gian “barker” of BARKE means ‘debark’; ‘tan’; ‘get to blows’.)

(26) (---) b. Det er den skitne boken, som laereren spurte hvem jeg sa hadde legt (*den) igjen på pullen. (---) ‘This is the dirty book that the teacher asked who I said had left (it) behind on the desk.’ (Maling 1978a, 87) Error: “skitne” of SKITTEN ‘dirty’ in a concrete sense, is likely to be an erroneous translation of “dirty” in the English “rendering”. DIRTY in its metaphoric sense, ‘obscene’, corresponds to Norwegian GROV, GRISETE etc. However, “den grisete boken” as a translation of “the dirty book” will be felt as slightly unidiomatic.

In Norwegian the counterpart to the English example in (101d) is also well formed: (iv) John wasket barna i ansiktet. John washed the children in the face But here Norwegian differs from English and French in another respect. In Norwegian John wasket barna ‘John washed the children’ may mean that only a specific part of the children’s body (for example, the hands) was washed. (Vergnaud and Zubizarreta 1992, 640n) Errors: “wasket”. Correct “vasket”. Possibly the result of interference from another Germanic language, probably English, but Dutch or German is also possible.

(19) a. (---) c. Jon wasket seg. (Hellan 1988:chap. 3, (22a)) Jon washed SE (Reinhart and Reuland 1993, 666) Error: “wasket”. Correct “vasket”. (Cf. Dutch “wassen”.) (The sentence is spelled correctly in Hellan 1988a, 108.)

33 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(---) sentence [17b] is from Reinhart and Reuland 1993: 666):

(17) (---)

b. Joni wasket segi. ‘Jon washed (himself).’ (Smith 2004, 585) Error: “wasket”. Correct “vasket”. A quotation from Reinhart and Reuland 1993. See above.

These cases involve lexical reflexivity, however, and are captured by Reinhart and Reuland’s theory:

(i) Max wast zich Max washes self ‘Max washes himself’ (ii) Jon wasket seg Jon washed self ‘Jon washed himself’ (Lidz 1996, 122) Error: “wasket”. Correct “vasket”. Presumably inherited from Reinhart and Reuland 1993, 666.

(27) a. (---) d. en Mann som var fra India … ‘a man that was from India …’ (Pesetsky 1982, 307) Errors (3 more tokens in the examples a. – c.): “Mann”. Correct: “mann”. German nouns have an initial capital character.

(72) En man *(som) var fra India kom inn A man that was from India came in

(---)

(73) En man kom inn *(som) var fra India (Pesetsky 1982, 325) Errors: “man”. Correct: “mann”. (English and Swedish: “man”.)

34 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Above, only examples of possible interference at word level have been given. Possible results of interference at phrase or sentence level will be listed at the end of the chapter on other anomalies at the same descriptive level.

Phrase level errors

Correct morphological form used in an incorrect way

(34) (---) c. Jeg har gitt John ei boka (Hoekstra 1995, 127) Error: “ei boka”. Correct: “ei bok”.60

(35) (---) c. Jeg har kjøpt ham ei boka (Hoekstra 1995, 127) Error: “ei boka”. Correct: “ei bok”.

Or consider the Norwegian means of expressing the demonstrative that.

(6) Det stort huset the large house-the that large house [76] Both det and the nominal suffix -et alone can be used to signal definiteness.

(7) a. Det stort hus the large house

b. Huset the house

In combination with one another, though, they mean that. (Carlson 1983, 75f.) Errors: “stort” in “Det stort huset” and “Det stort hus”. Correct: “store” (i.e. weak inflection): “Det store huset” and “Det store hus”. ii Vi jaget Jon tilbake til huset sin/hans. we chased Jon back to house SIN/his (Safir 2004, 251n) Error: “huset sin”. Correct: “huset sitt”. In a sympathetic reading, this “sin” may be explained as the lemma form of the word SIN. However, there is nothing else

60 A Norwegian noun cannot be explicitly definite and indefinite at the same time …

35 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

indicating that ii is not intended as a correct Norwegian sentence. SIN has to be written in its neuter form, sitt. sin is masculine.

(34a) Han med røtt hatt (34b) ??He with the red hat (Harbert 1995, 208) Error: “røtt”. Correct: “rød”.

(34) [Norwegian] (Svenonius 1993: 207) a. (---)

c. En kjempestore isbjørn a huge.C polar.bear (Mallen 1997, 71) Error: “kjempestore” in “en kjempestore isbjørn”. Correct: “kjempestor”, i.e. “en kjempestor isbjørn”. kjempestore is the weak inflection, wrong in this position. It is hardly probable that the author tries to represent the svaharabhakti vowel in Southwestern dialects – especially since Svenonius 1993 contains the correct form.

(35) [Norwegian] (Svenonius 1993: 212-3) a. Steffens sine utslitte olabukser

Steffen. hisPL worn.out blue.jeans (Mallen 1997, 71) Error: “Steffens” in “Steffens sine”. Correct: “Steffen”, i.e. “Steffen sine”. Svenonius 1993 contains the correct form.

(19) at det ikke var skote noe fuglar that he not has shot any birds (Hoekstra 1990, 217) Taking the other Norwegian examples in the same paper into account, this must be intended as a Nynorsk sentence. Cf. also “skote” and “fuglar”. Now, “noe” belongs to the other written standard (Bokmål). The correct Nynorsk form is “nokre”. More about this and the ikke/ikkje indicator below. On the other hand, “noe” is incorrect under all circumstances, since it is neuter singular. Only pronounced slang will use “noe” (or Nynorsk “noko” for that matter) as some sort of mass term in a case such as “noe fuglar”, which is not probable in this case. The correct form in Bokmål would have been “noen” (plural). As for the past participle “skote”, agreement with DET is certainly the official Nynorsk norm. However, “skotne” (plural) will also be an option as long as one does not limit the inquiry to the written standards.

f. at det var kjøpt ein hund that it became bought a dog ‘that a dog was bought’ (Haider 2000, 47)

36 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

“var” (of VÆRE ‘be’) indicating ‘state’) and not “vart” (of VERTE ‘become, get’ indicating ‘process’) is odd in itself – an impression supported by the translation (“became”).

(3) (---) b. Det var snakket om Jon . it was talked about John c. Det bli troet at Jon ikke var på kontoret it was believed that John not was in the office (Hoekstra 1990, 212) Errors: b. “var snakket om”. Correct: “ble snakket om”. (Another solution, however less probable to judge from the translation, is “var snakk om”.) c. “bli” (infinitive). Correct: “blir” (present) or, taking the translation (“was”) into consideration, “ble” or “blei” (past).

(2.65) Han hente barnai og ba *(demi) PROi feie.

He call.PAST children.DEF.Pli and order.PAST *(themi) PROi sweep ‘He called the children and ordered them (the children) to sweep.’

(2.66) Han hente barnai og ba *(demi) PROi om å feie.

He call.PAST children.DEF.Pli and order.PAST *(themi) PROi to sweep ‘He called the children and ordered them (the children) to sweep.’ (Larson 2005, 30) Error: “hente”. Correct past form is either “hentet” or “henta”. (“hente” is the infinitive. In some dialects of South-Eastern Norway, the infinitive and the past form of HENTE are homophones. This, however, does not seem to be what Larson intends to represent.)

(4) (---) b. Det starte en brann it started a fire (Hoekstra 1990, 212) Error: “starte” (infinitive). Correct “startet” or “starta” (past form). It is hardly probable that a non-standard phonetic adaptation of the South-East Norwegian dialect past form is intended. (Cf. above.) Probably a quotation from Åfarli 1992, 103:

(4) (---) d. Det starta ein brann. ‘There stared a fire.’

27Da) løbe [meget hurtigt] run very fast 28N) løp [veldig fort] run very fast (Webelhuth 1992, 70)

37 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Error: “løp” (imperative or past form). Correct: “løpe” (infinitive), cf. the Danish sentence right above. All the other examples in the same set are infinitives.

(109) a. det var ikke lett å få det til [at det komme så mange tilhörere] it was not easy to arrange it at that it come so many listeners (Hoekstra and Mulder 1990, 49) Do the authors really think that (109a) is a Norwegian sentence? Phrases such as “finite counterpart” seem to indicate this. Error: “komme” (infinitive) is wrong (109a). Correct: “kom”, or preferably “skulle komme”.

(51) a. (---)

c. *Jeg like han med langt haring ikke. I like him with long hair not (Koopman 1999, 119) Error: “like” (infinitive). Correct: “liker” (present) or “likte” (past).61

59a) Yeats lese seg selv på engelsk og så gjorde Hamsun det på norsk. “Yeats read SIG-SELF in English and then Hamsun did in Norwegian.” (Safir 2004, 132) Error: “lese” (infinitive). Correct “leste” (past form).62

5 Tests for bound variable status give different results in this case; many Norwegian speakers accept only the sloppy reading for (i) (Arild Hestvik, personal communication, Hellan 1988, 1991).

(i) Jon respekterer seg selv, og det gjøre Bjørn også. Jon respects self self and it does Bjorn also ‘Jon respects himself, and so does Bjorn.’ (Richards 1997, 183) Error: “gjøre” (infinitive). Correct: “gjør” (present).

73a) (---) c) Jon bad meg vasket seg/*seg selv. “Jon asked me to wash him.” (Safir 2004, 99)

61 The asterisk refers to one probable reading of the sentence only. Cf. below. 62 Alleged origin: "My Norwegian informant for these examples, Arild Hestvik, also permits the pronoun ham in place of seg in (59b)." (Safir 2004, 257n).

38 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Error “vasket” (past or past participle), correct “vaske” (infinitive).

(61) (---) b. Det hadde uheldigvis en student kanskje allerede brøt i går. That had unfortunately a student maybe already broken yesterday ‘A (specific) student unfortunately had maybe already violated it yesterday’ (Svenonius 2002a, 232) Error: “brøt”. Correct “brutt” (past participle). “brøt” is the past form, while both the context, “hadde”, ‘had’ the perfect tense auxiliary, and the English gloss indicate that “brutt”, the perfect participle, is correct.

(iii) (---) b. Det hadde uheldigvis en student kanskje allerede brøt i går. (Svenonius 2002: 230) that had unfortunately a student maybe alreay broken yesterday ‘A student unfortunately had maybe already violated it yesterday.’ (Engels 2004, 146n) Error: “brøt”. Correct “brutt” (past participle). “brøt” is the past form, while both the context, “hadde”, ‘had’ the perfect tense auxiliary, and the English gloss indicate that “brutt”, the perfect participle, is correct. A copy of Svenonius 2002a, 232 above. ”alreay” in the English gloss is a typo.

(26) Zăresc o casă. Jeg får sikte av et hus. (Avram 1987, 211) Error: “Jeg får sikte av et hus.” Correct: “Jeg får øye på et hus.”63

(5) Pisicile sînt rare în acest ţinut. Kattene er sjeldsynte på dette landet. (Avram 1987, 208) Error: “på dette landet”. Correct: “i dette landet”.64

At this descriptive level, there is also a lot of confusion brought about by the peculiar language situation in Norway.

63 Probably, since this author’s Rumanian competence is inexistent. 64 SJELDSYNT, usually associated with Norwegian Nynorsk, is extremely infrequent in Norwegian Bokmål, but cannot be considered to be incorrect.

39 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

What kind of Norwegian?

Written standards. The Bokmål/Nynorsk confusion

A special kind of phrasal incorrectness or straightforward error is connected with the special Norwegian variability, a complication brought about by spoken dialect versus written standard considerations with a strong historical dimension.65 The relationship between Nor- wegian and written Danish is far from simple but very important in this respect.

(2) a. i) acest om ii) omul acesta (Rumanian) this man man-the this b. denna man%(nen) (Mainland Scandinavian) this man-(the)

(---) In Mainland Scandinavian (2b), (---), the [242] optionality of the article appears to be a matter of dialectal variation, represented by “%”. 2 (Giusti 1994, 241f.)

2. With respect to this problem it seems quite difficult to distinguish clearly between the two variants in that the occurrence of the suffixed article is banned by the academy of certain national languages but used in the spoken languages. It can be roughly stated that Swedish allows it freely, including the formal language, Norwegian allows it in spoken varieties, while Danish does not display it at all. (Giusti 1994, 242n) As far as Norwegian is concerned, this is misleading. The suffixed article is generally recommended by the Norwegian Language Council, Norsk språkråd. Suf- fixed articles may be omitted only in the case of names of institutions: In written Norwegian – even in Bokmål, the standard closest to Danish – the lack of a suffixed definite article is quite marked, as long as there is no name involved. It definitely has an archaic ring. In spoken Norwegian, the lack of suffixed article is exceptional. An unofficial academy, with the objective to promote old, Dano- Norwegian normative rules, has a more open attitude to omitting suffixed articles also when no name of institution is involved, though.

Within the Scandinavian branch of Germanic, Norwegian (Nynorsk and informal Bokmål) and Faeroese permit re-articulation in the Swedish manner but are less eager to practice it. (---)

And, (---), Danish and the formal Bokmål variety of Norwegian obligatorily shed the noun- article when an attributive adjective is added along with its adjective-article: [358]

65 Vikør 2001, 53-57 and 98-104 describes the relationship between Bokmål and Nynorsk for those unfamiliar with the language situation in Norway.

40 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(75) den ung-e mand(*-en) the young-WEAK man(*-DEF) (Plank 2003, 357f.) The last contention is obviously not correct as far as Present-day Norwegian is concerned, cf. remarks made in relationship to other examples above.66

A noun phrase containing an adjectival modifier and a head noun may be lexicalized as a proper name, as in the White House. (---) In Scandinavian, we can see a tendency towards decreased definiteness marking. There is great variation in how this tendency is realized, however. Starting with ‘the White House’, the most common translations into the standard languages4 are as follows:

Danish: det hvide Hus (P+W+S-) Norwegian Bokmål: det Hvite hus (P+W+S-) Norwegian Nynorsk: det Kvite huset (P+W+S+) Swedish: Vita huset (P+W+S+) (Dahl 2004, 155) As for Norwegian, the definiteness marking has been increasing over time - also as far as names are concerned. It appears that Dahl has consulted normative grammars of a dubious - or archaic - character.

4 An internet search reveals that the differences between the two varieties of Norwegian are not so clear-cut as normative grammars would have it, in this case. Thus, both det Hvite huset and det Kvite hus do occur. It appears that the pattern P+W+S- has its source in Danish-inspired written language and is not productive in spoken language. (Dahl 2004, 179n) The statement in Dahl’s footnote is true. Still, the influence from what was originally Danish officialese can be found in both Bokmål and Nynorsk, although to a lesser degree in the latter.

20. As mentioned, Danish doesn’t have Dx in construction with descriptive attributive adjectives and also does not do so in names: Det Hvide Hus ‘‘The White House’, Det Døde Hav ‘The Dead Sea’. Norwegian, for some reason, either behaves like Danish or employs a form of compounding: Det Hvite Hus but Døde Havet, the latter with compound intonation. (Holmberg and Platzack 2005, 454n) The statement “Norwegian, (---), either behaves like Danish or employs a form of compounding.” is incorrect. True, Norwegian (especially Bokmål) has a tendency to follow Danish in the case of names. In other cases, the so-called double definite form is both recommended and used in practice as stated above. The situation alluded to reflects (written) Dano-Norwegian more than one century ago.

66 Interestingly enough, Plank makes a reference to Lundeby 1965 in passing and in the initial part of the chapter. (Lundeby’s monograph is the standard, descriptive linguistics study on the subject). However, Plank’s claim has no foundation in Lundeby 1965.

41 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Error: “Døde Havet”. Correct: “Dødehavet”. This does not mean, however, that both constructions can be used freely. For instance, this author has never heard nor seen any instance of “Hvitehuset”, which would only be understood as a joke. Thus, the second part of Holmberg and Platzack’s contention is also a qualified truth.

Norwegian and Icelandic have retained the Old Scandinavian three-gender system with masculine, feminine and neuter. (Platzack 2000, 301n) The foreign reader may here get the impression that the three-gender system of Old Scandinavian has been retained completely in both modern languages. This is not the case, though. It is only fair to say that Norwegian Bokmål is characterised by a 2.5 gender system, as the feminine gender is lacking altogether in the dialect of the city of Bergen as well as in conservative Dano-Norwegian except for rudimentary forms. In general, the feminine gender leads a rather fluctuant existence in Bokmål representing some sort of latent category.

Norwegian non-restrictive relative clauses are structurally very similar to the Danish ones, except that der is used only in conservative Bokmål (Faarlund et al. 1997: 1056). (Platzack 2002, 80) DER in relative clause initial position was used by authors of the Riksmaal written standard, a precursor of today’s Bokmål. Today, a DER in this position will – without exception – be felt as a deliberate borrowing of a Danish construction (presumably in order to achieve a special stylistic effect). Which is, in fact, the case with the two examples given in Faarlund et al. 1997, 1056. Here, in the very last paragraph of 11.3.2.1.1 one reads the following:

“Etter dansk mønster kan ein i konservativt bokmål av og til finne der brukt som subjunksjon i relativsetningar med relativisert subjekt, særleg når ordet som står like føre korrelatet: Dette elementet defineres som et handlingselement der bringer undergang eller smerte (Børtnes 1980). Somme tider kjente vi oss som de der visste minst av alle (Dagbladet 1995).” (Faarlund et al. 1997: 1056)

However, the examples of Faarlund et al. are either a curiosity or an intended archaism. As a matter of fact, this use of DER became extinct several generations ago. So, Platzack’s contention “is used only in conservative Bokmål” is true only under a special interpretation, ‘at least once or twice’ - and he has not construed the relevant paragraph of Faarlund et al. 1997 correctly.

In the possessor-doubling construction (13a) from Norwegian (Nynorsk dialect),6 the doubling element sin is a reflexive, hence anaphoric (it is opposed to pronominal hans; see Delsing 1998, Fiva 1984). We correctly predict that the Norwegian possessor-doubling construction is compatible with a reciprocal possessor (13b).

(13) a. Per sin bil

42 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Per his car ‘Per’s car’ b. kvarandre sin bil each-other his car ‘each other’s car’ (Haegeman 2004, 705) Nynorsk is not a dialect. It is one of the two written standards of Norwegian. The SIN genitive, on the other hand, is a dialectal phenomenon, and its users are found in both the Nynorsk and the Bokmål camp. This implies that numerous Nynorsk users will never say or write (13) a. or b.

Notice also that the inherently reflexive verb par excellence (i.e. the example most often mentioned in the literature, (---), viz. skamme sig ‘be ashamed’ has two variants in Norwegian dialects, see (141).

(141) a. skamme seg (Bokmål Norwegian) shame REFL ‘be ashamed’ b. skjemme-s (Ny-norsk Norwegian)50 shame-S ‘be ashamed’ (Bergeton 2004, 300) SKAMME SEG and SKJEMMES are normal in both written standards. Note that “Ny-norsk” (with a hard hyphen) is incorrect in English as well as in Nor- wegian. Correct Norwegian form: “nynorsk”. (Bergeton’s footnote 50 contains a reference to Faarlund, Lie and Vannebo 1999 [1997], which is totally irrele- vant.)

More examples will be given in the section on strange assertions below. But first, a quotation from a linguist exhibiting a limited knowledge of Norwegian dialectology and of the actual use of the written standard Nynorsk today:

The oldest type of a repertoire in Europe in which standard and dialects are structurally and genetically closely related was similar18 to what we find today in (---) Norway (---) in areas were Nynorsk is used instead of Bokmål as the standard variety (i.e. with the exception of the eastern region around Oslo).19 (Auer 2005, 15) If the content of the parentheses is intended as an explicitation, i.e. of “in the areas were (sic!) Nynorsk is used instead of Bokmål as the standard variety”, the author is wrong.

19. The majority of Norwegians use Bokmål as their standard variety which is structurally very similar to the urban dialect of Oslo. (Auer 2005, 34n)

43 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Yes, rather similar. But equally to all urban dialects with the possible exception of the one of Stavanger. One could also add the South-Eastern interior region, parts of Trøndelag and the entire North, with the exception of a few small and isolated areas. And this is not an entirely new situation.

In Norway, the Danish written standard became norwegeianised (---) by active and conscious Norwegianisation of the whole language, modelled on the Oslo dialect, to form one of the two modern standard varieties, i.e. what is known today as Bokmål (Widmark, in press). (Auer 2005, 17) This author suspects that e.g. speakers of the Bergen dialect will object to this description. For linguistic reasons already mentioned, and because Bergen was by far the most important city in Norway during the critical phase of modifying the Dano-Norwegian orthography in the 19th century. The Bergen dialect, by the way, was also the national theatre norm until the end of the 19th century, i.e. even in Oslo. As for the reference, “Widmark, in press” is Widmark 2005,67 which gives slightly different yet equally inexact description of this particular phase of the normalisation of Norwegian (Widmark 2005, 1504) 68 . “norwegeianised” in Auer’s chapter is a misprint.

Auer returns to the idea of Bokmål based on the (south)eastern dialects several times: Auer 2005, 20 and 24.

Awareness of written standard

NORWEGIAN (Faarlund 1981:48) (4.23) a. Eg vil i alle fall ikkje stole på han I will in any case not rely on him (Siewierska 1988, 157) This is a correct Nynorsk sentence. It is a matter of debate whether the written standard of Norwegian should always be indicated or not.

en nynorsk (33) sykkelen har Marie kjøpt c’est-à-dire (Perrot 1998, 621) The information “en nynorsk” is redundant/misleading, since this is a perfect Bokmål sentence as well.

67 And not "Widmark, Gün" as in Auer’s bibliography, but "Widmark, Gun". 68 Inexact since, among other things, ”The Norwegian created by Knud Knudsen, Riksmål/Bokmål, was based on educated colloquial speech. In this context, the speech of Oslo provided the norm, (---)” (Widmark 2005, 1504) can be easily interpreted as if Knudsen created Riksmål and that he wanted the ”speech of Oslo” to be the norm. He did not.

44 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(---) dans tous ces énoncés, un indice actanciel il dont le correspondant se retrouve dans d’autres langues: (---), det en norvégien etc.; exemple en norvégien:

(146) det forvann ei jente . c’est-à-dire (Perrot 1998, 641) In this example drawn from the same article, no information about written standard is given. The sentence is labelled “norvégien” only, which is misleading, since it is a clear Nynorsk sentence. Which, in turn points to the fact that the information “nynorsk” in the case of Perrot’s example (33) shown above is super- fluous.69

(19) Desse konstruksjonar trur eg at t er meir naturlege these constructions think I that are more natural uttrykksmåtar. expressions ‘These constructions, I think that they are more natural expressions.’ (20) Det finns substantivforekomster vi ikke engang vet it exists noun occurrences we not even know [om e skall klassifiseres som mengdetermer eller ikke.] if shall classify-PASS as mass terms or not ‘There are noun occurrences that we don’t even know if they should be classified as mass terms or not.’ (Engdahl 1985, 13) (19) is Nynorsk, while (20) is Bokmål. In this case this confusion is probably of no importance. However, one might imagine cases where the difference between the written standards is of crucial importance.

So far, examples of a general lack of awareness as to the written standard of entire sentences have been given. One special case is the inconsistency within a given sentence as far as written standard is concerned.

Inconsistency as to written standard

(77b) desse konstruksjonar trur jeg at er meir naturlege uttrykksmåta diese Konstruktionen denke ich daß sind mehr natürliche Ausdrucksmittel (Fanselow 1991, 338) Error: “jeg”. Correct Nynorsk: “eg”. (“jeg” is Bokmål.) An inexact copy of Engdahl 1988a, 81.

69 This fact is, however, without any importance/relevance for the linguistic issue at hand.

45 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Thus the contrast between Norwegian (22) and Icelandic (23) is predicted by our analysis (cf. Vangsnes 1995).

(22) Norwegian a. Det har vore en katt i kjøkenet. (---) ‘There has been a cat in the kitchen.’ (Bobaljik and Thráinsson 1998, 55) Error: “en” (Bokmål) in a straightforward Nynorsk sentence. Correct: “ein”. A deliberate mixture of dialect/written forms is excluded, given the authors’ earlier comment:

9 We consider in this paper only the standard dialects of these languages. (Bobaljik and Thráinsson 1998, 46) (It seems natural to interpret “standard dialects” as ‘written standards’ as far as Norwegian is concerned.) In other similar examples, the correct form “ein” is used. “ein” is also the form found in Vangsnes 1995, 91.70

The embedded clause variant of (1a) is given in (17). (17) immediately shows that ingen fuglar cannot be in the SPEC of the complement of vaere. (---).

(17) at det ingen fuglar var skotne that it no birds were shot+AGR3pl

(18) at det NPi vaere [AGRP ti AGR [VP skotne ti]] (Hoekstra 1990, 216) The gloss (18) contains “vaere” as the supposed infinitive form of “var” in the Nynorsk sentence (17). Although a variant with “vart” (infinitive “verte”) seems natural, cf. above, this sentence is correct.71 However, the infinitive of “var” in Nynorsk is “vere/vera”, not “være” which probably is the form intended by “vaere”.

(19) at det ikke var skote noe fuglar that he not has shot any birds (Hoekstra 1990, 217) As remarked above, “ikke” and “noe” are Bokmål word forms. (“noe” is neuter singular and incorrect at this position in the phrase anyway.) Correct forms in Nynorsk: “ikkje” and “nokre” (plural).

(3.74) (---)

70 Which, by the way, has not been included in Bobaljik and Thráinson’s bibliography. 71 This sentence has all the appearance of being intended as a copy of (70) of Christensen (1989, 377). Christensen’s example, though, contains “vart” (of VERTE ‘get/become’). In Hoekstra’s bibliography, by the way, the title of Christensen’s paper is spelled incorrectly: “Partisipkongruens (---)” instead of “Partisippkongruens”.

46 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

 *ham1/*ham selv1/*seg1/seg selv1 

(b) Harald1 fortalde Jon2 om  

 *ham2/ham selv2/*seg2/*seg selv2  Harald told John about (Norwegian) (Büring 2005, 76) Error: “fortalde”. Correct: “fortalte”. “fortalde is the correct Nynorsk form, while the sentence is distinctively a Bokmål sentence., cf. “ham” ‘him’ and “selv” ‘self’.72

This inconsistency may even prevail in a conspicuous manner when it comes to morphological variants of what is basically the very same written standard:

(13) a. det blir kjøpt ei bok/*boken it is bought a book/book-the b. det blir snakket om boken it is talked about book-the c. der blir gitt Jon ei bok/boken it is given John a book/book-the d. *der blir gitt en mann boken it was given a man book-the (Hoekstra 1995, 123) Both standards of Norwegian are characterised by extensive variability, i.e. the possibility of choosing between several elements within one set of equivalent morphological forms. E.g. the indefinite article feminine singular {en, ei} and post posed definite article feminine singular {-en, -a}. This does not imply, however, that any element may be combined with anyone else in the same (part of a) text. E.g. “ei bok” and “boken” is clearly an anomaly. By the way, in (13a) - (13c), “blir” is glossed as “is”, while “blir” in (13d), is “was”. As “blir” has the same tense in all the four sentences, “was” is incorrect.

Foreigners usually have a very unclear idea about the inherent variability of Norwegian and about the entire Bokmål/Nynorsk distinction, often conceiving it as a matter of dialect differences only. True, there is a relationship between the two different written standards, their internal variability, and the dialects. Yet, they are not dialects. A related phenomenon is the use of regional features of Norwegian as arguments in discussions aiming at Norwegian as a whole or characterising the dialects of other regions.73

72 Since Bühring also commits “accidental errors”, cf. Bühring 2005, 60, it seems a likely possibility to analyse the present error as such. Note that the English gloss ends in "about", apparently by some sort of con- vention, since this type of abbreviation also characterise other glosses of other examples. 73 Despite wise caveats such as: "To talk about Swedish, Norwegian and Icelandic as monolithic entities with no variation among the speakers of each language is of course an oversimplification. As will become clear, the variation among Norwegian speakers is so important that even for an overview like this one, it is not possible to maintain the fiction of one grammar." (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 277n)

47 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

What is Norwegian after all?

Regional variants

(14) (---) b. Jeg har ingen bok kjøpt c. Jeg har ingen bok gitt henne d. *Jeg har ingen mann gitt boken/ei bok (Hoekstra 1995, 123) Both b. and c. have a definite dialectal and/or archaic flair. Perhaps a handful of Norwegian speakers of the Southern coast variant will accept them? However, they are felt to be wrong by the Norwegian language user in general today. To the extent that this author does not find (14d) less grammatical than the two preceding sentences

(i) a. Jeg har ingeni/ (No) I have no one/

*hennei set ti. *her seen “I haven’t seen anyone.” (Thráinsson 2001, 197) A certain dialectal and archaic flair. Still, less acceptable than the two sentences above.

The examples above are clearly linked to restricted dialect areas. Still, they are used as arguments in analyses of general phenomena or features of different dialects of Norwegian. The same problem is illustrated by the following examples:

(---) the so-called verb-particle alternation which is attested in Norwegian and English and illustrated in (28) and (29):

(28) a. John drank his beer up b. John drank up his beer (29) a. Mannen har drukket vinnen opp the.man has drunk wine PART b. Mannen har drukket opp vinnen the.man has drunk PART wine ‘The man has drunk up the wine’ (Norwegian; Svenonius 1996: 10) (Zeller 2001, 285) Disregarding the spelling error, (29 a) is only acceptable to speakers of a dialect from the South coast.74

74 “[Zeller’s] 2001 book is a valuable source of information about the grammatical behavior and status of particle verbs in German (and, to a lesser degree, in other Germanic languages).” Benji Wald, in Language 79(4), 2003. Which is correct, although in a sense different from the one intended.

48 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(1) a. Mannen har drukket opp vinnen the.man has drunk up the. wine b. Mannen har drukket vinnen opp the.man has drunk the.wine up ‘The man has drunk up the wine’ (Svenonius 1996a: 10) (Zeller 2002, 234) Zeller repeats these odd examples although in a different sequence, in a chapter published one year later - with a somewhat different gloss... (1 b) is only acceptable to speakers of a dialect from the South coast.

One of these is the fact that the Mainland Scandinavian languages exhibit a three-way contrast (cf. Taraldsen 1983); in Danish, the particle must follow the postverbal DP, as shown in (18a); Norwegian is like English in that both orders are acceptable, as in (18b); and in Swedish, the particle must precede the postverbal DP, as in (18c).

(18) a. Vi slap {*ud} hunden {ud} (Dan) b. Vi slapp {ut} hunden {ut} (Nor) c. Vi släpte {ut} hunden {*ut} (Swe) we let out the.dog out ‘We let the dog out’ (Svenonius 1994, 3/8) The “Vi slapp hunden ut” variant is, in general, only acceptable to speakers of a dialect from the South coast. On the other hand, they would probably not use “Vi slapp ut hunden”.75

The first relevant observation is that (standard) Swedish is alone among the Scandinavian languages in requiring the object to follow the particle. In Danish, Icelandic, and Norwegian, the object may (or must in Danish) precede the particle.

(53) a. Vi slap {*ud} hunden {ud} (Danish) b. Við hentum {út} hundinum {út} (Icelandic) c. Vi slapp {ut} hunden {ut} (Norwegian) d. Vi släpte {ut} hunden {*ut} (standard Swedish) we let out the.dog out We let the dog out. (Svenonius 1994, p. 169, 1996b, p. 10) (Bobaljik 2002, 236) The “Vi slapp hunden ut” variant is, in general, only acceptable to speakers of a dialect from the South coast.

(2.11) Vi slapp (ut) hunden (ut). we let (out) dog.the (out)

75 Note that the Swedish sentence contains one error: "släpte". Correct: "släppte". See also Bobaljik 2002, 236 below.

49 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

‘We let the dog out.’ [Norwegian; Svenonius 1994] (Toivonen 2003, 20) The “Vi slapp hunden ut” variant is, in general, only acceptable to speakers of a dialect from the South coast.

(24) (---) (b) slå lyset av (Norwegian) turn light-the off (Hróarsdóttir 2000, 316) Slightly awkward to all speakers of Norwegian except those talking a dialect from the South coast. Still, this sentence is less odd than the preceding ones. One explanation is that it gives sense to think of a special stress/accent on the adverb “av”, since it may contrast with “på” (SLÅ PÅ ‘turn on’) It doesn’t give sense to contrast e.g. “drikke opp” (Zeller 2001, 285 and Zeller 2002, 234) with “drikke ned” (NED ‘down’).

(3) (---) b. Jeg skrev (nummeret/det) opp (nummeret/*det). (Norwegian) (---) I wrote (the-number/it) up (the-number/it) ‘I wrote the number/it down.’ (Holmberg 1999, 2) Only acceptable to speakers of a dialect from the South coast.

(41) (---) d. Hann spiste tørrfisken/den opp. (Thráinsson 2001, 166) The variant with the noun “tørrfisken” is only acceptable to speakers of a dialect from the South coast.

Pronominal OS in Danish and Norwegian works the same way, but the Swedish facts are different, as shown by Holmberg (1986), due to special properties of the particle construction in Swedish (see also Svenonius 1996):

(i) a. Hún skrifaði það upp/*upp það. (Ic) b. Hon skrev *det upp/upp det. (Sw) c. Hun skrev det op/*op det (Da) she wrote it up/up it (Thráinsson 2001, 198n)

50 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Yes and no. In general, Norwegian follows the Danish example, (i c). On the other hand, there are dialects where the speakers talk according to the Swedish pattern as exemplified in (i a)

Norwegian and Icelandic have both possibilities, as shown by the following examples from Svenonius (1996):

(11) a. Han spiste tørrfisken opp. (Norwegian) He ate dry.fish-the up

b. Han spiste opp tørrfisken. he ate up dry.fish-the ‘He ate up the dried fish.’

(12) a. Ég gerði nokkra bíla upp. (Icelandic) I fixed some cars up

b. Ég gerði upp nokkra bíla. I fixed up some cars ‘I fixed up some cars.’

When the object is a weak pronoun, it is placed before the particle in Danish, Norwegian, and Icelandic; in Swedish, it still tends to follow the particle.6 Evidently, the optionality of particle shift of DPs in Norwegian and Icelandic is similar to that found in English:

(13) a. Hun har hengt det opp. (Norwegian) she has hung it up

b. Hon har hängt upp det. (Swedish) she has hung up it (Holmberg and Platzack 2005, 427) (11) a. is only acceptable to speakers of a Norwegian dialect from the South coast. Unelicited, no non-linguist Norwegian will use or recognize both variants. However, sentences such as (11) a. are presented here and elsewhere as Norwe- gian tout court, with the value as an argument for Norwegian in general. Thus, it is of interest to make a comparison to the Icelandic and Swedish sentences: While Norwegian language users cannot choose freely between (11a) and (11b), Icelanders may choose (12a) or (12b), which represent a stylistic option for all language users. (Kjartan Ottóson, p.c.) Thus, presenting the situation in Norwe- gian and in Icelandic as equal is misleading. For the sake of consistency, one should also have to accept as Norwegian a sentence similar to the Swedish (13b), as this sentence type is equally acceptable to the speakers of Norwegian dialects along the Swedish border (in the county of Hedmark).

(22) a. mannen sitt hus (Norw.)

51 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

man-the his-REFL house (Delsing 1998, 94)

(48) a han Per (N.Norw.) he Per (Delsing 1998, 102) There is no doubt as to the correctness of the two phrases (22a) and (48a). Still, (22a) is above all a phenomenon characterising the Western dialects of Norwegian. Despite this, it is labelled here as “(Norw.)”‘ i.e. ‘Norwegian’.. (48a), on the other hand, is marked as “(N.Norw.)” i.e. ‘Northern Norwegian’, while, in fact, this construction is used in the spoken language in most parts of Norway.

The requirement that reanalysis must preserve the linear order pre-determined by structural adjacency seems to be less restrictive in Norwegian. As illustrated in (82), some Norwegian dialects prefer the order particle-verb when the particle verb is used in the participle form: [289] (39) a. Trea vart nedhogne the.trees were PART-chopped b. ??Trea vart hogne ned the.trees were chopped PART ‘The trees were chopped down’ (Western Norwegian; Svenonius 1996: 19)

As noted in Svenonius (1996), the sentence with the particle on the left of the verb favors a stative interpretation of the participle, whereas the particle on the right favors an eventive reading. This suggests that (39a) is an adjectival passive, while (39b) seems to be a verbal passive. (Zeller 2001, 288f.) The correct reference is Svenonius 1996a, 20 and 22.

In the two above cases, one very special dialect feature is exposed in order to serve as an argument. In the following case, a very precise dialect determination of one particular phenomenon is produced. However, the phenomenon in question is known from all Norwegian dialects. I.e. the “precision” relating this phenomenon to one particular dialect area is misleading.

Consider the Swedish pseudo-coordination36 example in (25), from Josefsson (1991), and the parallel examples from the Trøndelag dialect of Norwegian (data from Tor Åfarli, personal communication, 1996) in (26).

(25) I köket står det en kwinna och lagar middag In the-kitchen stands there a woman and cooks dinner ‘In the kitchen, there stands a woman and cooks dinner.’

52 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(26) (a) Det kom en mann og reparerte bilen min ‘There came a man and repaired my car.’ (b) Det satt et menneske og leste avisen ‘There sat a person and read the newspaper.’ (Cormack 1999, 60) These are perfectly normal Norwegian phrases, no matter the dialect. To specify that the data are drawn from the Trøndelag dialect of Norwegian equals saying that the “I’m hungry.” is taken from the New York dialect (Walter Rosenbaum, personal communication, 1986).76

Another aspect of the dialect-for-language argumentation consists in using as arguments dialect forms not accepted by official orthography:

In colloquial Scandinavian varieties, including at least Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish, demonstratives may be reinforced with adverbial-like elements. The following Swedish and Norwegian examples are representative of the phenomenon (Norwegian examples due to Vangsnes):2, 3

(9) (a) den här mannen (Swedish) the here man-the ‘this man’ (b) den där bilen the there car-the ‘that car’ (10) (a) den herre klokka (Norwegian) the here watch-the ‘this watch’ (b) det derre huset the there house-the ‘that house’ (Bernstein 1997, 90) and in a note:

2 Øystein Vangsnes (personal communication) points out that the Norwegian equivalent is much more colloquial than the Swedish one, and is never found in the written language.(---) (Bernstein 1997, 90n) Note that both “herre” and “derre” are forms unknown to any official orthography.

As examples, Bernstein cites such diverse languages as (---) and colloquial varieties of Swedish and Norwegian (one of her Norwegian examples is given in (56b)).

76 Note that “kwinna” is an error. Correct Swedish: “kvinna”. (Correct in Josefsson 1991.)

53 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(56) (---) [539] b. den herre klokka the here watch-the ‘this watch’ (Cheng and Sybesma 1999, 538f.) Note that “herre” is a form unknown to any official orthography, cf. the above example.

(27) (---) c. denne herre (flotte) bilen (Norwegian) this here (nice) car-the (Brugè 2002, 26) Note that “herre” is a form unknown to any official orthography, cf. the above example.

Finally, one special case of this use of dialect forms can be subsumed under the designation The Hallingdalen Syndrome.

Similarly, the Norwegian dialect of Hallingdalen discussed in Trosterud (1989) has plural forms (in the present tense) that are identical to the infinitive and lacks V-to-Agr: (---) It appears, then, that Hallingdalen is in relevant respects like Faroese. Putting together Faroese, Hallingdalen and Älvdalsmålet, it appears that it is plural agreement which is related to V-to-Agr movement. (Roberts 1993, 265)

English finite verbs have either tense morphology (past tense) or agreement morphology (present tense), but never both (---), and the same goes for for finite verbs in Hallingmålet. (Vikner 1997, 190)

Furthermore, as has been pointed out by Vikner (1995a), all these approaches face a problem on the ground that there are languages like Late Old Swedish (Falk 1993: 172f.) or Faroese (Vikner 1995a) in which V-to-I movement is optional. For instance, Late Old Swedish, and the Norwegian dialect of Hallingdalen make number distinctions, but may lack V-movement as illustrated in the following examples.

[227] (---)

(22) Hallingdalen sg. kasta ‘throw’ pl. kastæ (23) at me ikkje kjøpæ bokje that we not buy book-the (Alexiadou and Fanselow 2002, 226f)

54 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Cf. Rohrbacher 1999, 117f.

As already mentioned in passing, there is a certain correspondence between some distinctively regional phenomena and the development of Norwegian. Dialects may contain linguistic atavisms. Another way of exploring atypical data in linguistic discussions involves archaic features no matter their geographical distributions.

Archaisms

(99) a. Jag fick bocken {skriven/*skrivet} (Swe) I got the.book written.M/written.N b. Jeg fikk boka skrevet (Nor) I got the.book written c. Jeg fik skrevet bogen (Dan) I got written the.book ‘I got the book written’ (Svenonius 1994, 3/51) (99) b. is acceptable, although an archaism. In fact, the syntax of its Danish parallel has more appeal to a native user of Norwegian as the unmarked case.77

(10) (---) d. Jeg setter ham en hatt på hodet (Hoekstra 1995, 122) Awkward sentence with a distinct archaic flair. Nobody will write a sentence such as this one today under “normal” circumstances, the sole exception being idiomatic expressions, e.g. “skyte ham ett skudd for baugen” ‘fire a shot across his bow’. Is Hoekstra’s sentence the result of interference from French or Ger- man?

(37) (---) c. Jeg har satt ham en hat på hodet (Hoekstra 1995, 127) Just as awkward as the sentence right above.

(85N) [Til hvem] skriver du to whom write you (Webelhuth 1992, 124) Only acceptable under special circumstances (extraordinary accentuation/stress).

77 If we are to believe Diderichsen 1968, 135, b. is as Danish as c.: “Han fik Bøgerne indbundet/indbundne Bøgerne”. Note that "bocken" in the Swedish sentence, a., is an error. Correct: "boken". (Swedish BOCK means ‘ram’, “bocken” definite singular. This error must be due to confusion with the plural form, "böcker" (indefinite plural).

55 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Still more dubious in a discussion of Present-day Norwegian are arguments based on geographically and otherwise extremely limited slang and more or less idiosyncratic child language.

Atypical language use

By “atypical Norwegian” is meant children’s language, slang etc.

Furthermore, it turns out that even the pronominal forms aren’t always identical, as shown in the forms in (42) drawn from various dialects (the especially widespread type represented in (42a) is discussed in Fretheim 1976).

(42) a. min jakke jakka mi (Oslo dialect) my jacket jacket.DEF my b. våres bok boka vårs (Harstad dialect) our book book.DEF our c. min bror brorsan (Sarpsborg dialect) my brother brother-my (Svenonius 1993, 215) (42a) is a reminder of the charm of Norwegian variation. Dependent on context, style level/register, sociolect, and sub-dialect, the two parts, “min jakke” and “jakka mi” may be used by the same native speaker. Yet, “mi jakke” and “jakken min” are also possible. (This author is a native of Oslo). (42b)? Maybe. If you are from Harstad. (42c) Nonsense! With few exceptions (e.g. the dialect of Bergen), “min bror” is the rigid, written language inspired “high” form, just like “min jakke”. “brorsan” is slang. I.e. a Swedish slang word used by some Norwegians. Perhaps more used around Sarpsborg (close to the Swedish border) than elsewhere, still a different word at a different level. C. is liable to correspond to the following pair in English: “my father - daddy” or maybe its constituents are further apart still.

Remarkably, for many speakers, -s can be stranded as well, cliticizing to the element preceding it. Here, of course, an analysis as an affix is out of the question:

(33) Hvem er det’s (bil) Who is it+s (car) ‘Whose (car) is that?’ (Newmeyer 1998, 267) This sentence is wrong. The only native speakers of Norwegian that can utter such a sentence seriously are small children. Before they are acknowledged as regular user of Norwegian. The sentence in question is idiosyncratic, in the sense that not all Norwegian children of any dialect necessarily pass through a phase of language learning involving such sentences. From a normative point of view, the sentence contains a clear error. This is what is implied in Fiva 1984,

56 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Newmeyer’s source: “-s can marginally occur suffixed onto a noun that is not the head of the possessor chain, but outside of the matrix NP in which –s belongs.” (Fiva 1984, 41) In her article, the sentence is marked with an interroga- tion mark. Also, the apostrophe is non-standard.

What was the name of this language again … ?

(71a) fordi det har arbeidet en mann på kontoret hver aften (Swe) because EXPL has worked a man in the office every night ‘because a man has worked in the office every night (71b) därför att det har arbetat en mann i byrån varje afton (Norw) because that EXPL has worked a man in the office every night ‘because a man has worked in the office every night (Brandner 1993, 103) (71a) is not Swedish as indicated by means of “(Swe)”. It is Norwegian. On the other hand, (71b) is not Norwegian as indicated, cf. “(Norw)”, but Swedish.

(2) a. Eng Peter was talking with someone, but I don’t know (with) who. b. Nor Peter har talat med naagon; jag vet inte (med) vem. c. Swe Per har snakket med noen, men jeg vet ikke (med) hvem. (Merchant 2000, 1) b. is not Norwegian. It is Swedish. c., on the other hand, is not Swedish. It is Norwegian. Additionally, “naagon” is also incorrect Swedish for “någon”.

In some cases, the lack of linguistic competence is even reflected in the use of an incorrect language name:

Of these three patterns, (60a) is that of main clauses in the North Germanic languages Danish, Norse, Icelandic, and Swedish, (60c) is found in Dutch, German, and Frisian, (---). (Dik 1980, 172) “Norse”? “Norwegian” is probably the word intended. Result of interference from Dutch? (NOORS ‘Norwegian’.)

For example, one may compare typological shapes of modern Norse and modern Icelandic, English and German, Russian and English, etc., and relate these results with empirical data on rates of their core dictionary survival in time. (Polikarpov 1997)

57 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Syntactic errors

As an implication of what was stated in the introduction, there is a gradual transition from error to oddity – and a corresponding lack of rigour as to what examples will be catered for in this section and the next one. Although it is possible to recognize what syntactic subsystem the grammarian is aiming at, it is usually difficult to explain exactly why a sentence is ungrammatical. So, I shall refrain from explanations in most of the below cases.

(6.60) (---) b. De ga Marit ikke blomstene. (Nor) they gave Marit not the-flowers (Holmberg and Platzack 1995, 172) Adverb in the wrong place.

(7.8) Norwegian (Holmberg and Platzack 1995: 172) De ga Marit ikke blomstene. they gave Marit not the-flowers ‘They did not give Marit the folowers.’ (Ura 2000, 236) Adverb in the wrong place. (“folowers” is a common misprint.)

Icelandic is unique among the Scandinavian languages, insofar as in the other Scandinavian languages object shift is restricted to pronouns. Holmberg and Platzack (1995, pp. 172f.), however, report that to a limited extent non-pronominal arguments may shift: in Norwegian varieties of Swedish and Faroese, a non-pronominal DP of a double object construction may be shifted, again without change of the relative order. (---)

(45) a. De ga Marit ikke/gjerne blomstene (Norwegian) H&P, p. 172 they gave Marit not/gladly flowers-the b. Vi ger barnen altid/inte vad de vil han (Swedish) H&P, p. 172 we gave children-the always/not what they want have (Haider 2005, 35) Adverb in the wrong place. Only the “ikke” sentence can be found in Holmberg and Platzack 1995, where there is a different “gjerne” sentence. As for “in Nor- wegian varieties of Swedish and Faroese”, hopefully, just a comma is missing ...78

(i) Han så uten tvil den. (Norwegian) he saw without doubt it (Holmberg 1999, 28)

78 Note that the Swedish example contains several errors: "altid", correct: "alltid". Error: "vil", correct: "vill". Error: "han", correct: "ha". The sentence is spelled correctly in Holberg and Platzack. Additionally, Swedish "ger", ‘give(s)’ (present form) is translated as ‘gave’ (past form).

58 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Preposition phrase in the wrong place. Felt to be incorrect without an expansion of the object NP, e.g. “den mannen som gikk langs vegen” ‘the man who was walking by the roadside’.

(1) a. Knut leverte sannsynligvis oppgaven inn. (Nor) Knut handed probably the.assignment in ‘Knut probably handed the assignment in.’ (Svenonius 2000, 256) Adverb in the wrong place.

(2) a. ... hvis Knut sannsynligvis leverte den inn. (Nor) if Knut probably handed it in (Svenonius 2000, 256) Adverb in the wrong place. Inconsistency HVIS / SANNSYNLIGVIS.

(27) a. (---) b. Norwegian Jeg trur at Jon sannsynligvis ikke leste den. I think that Jon probably not read it ‘I think that Jon probably did not read it.’ (Holmberg and Rijkhoff 1998, 84) This sentence contains several oddities: From a syntactic point of view, “sannsynligvis ikke” is hardly grammatical. From a semantic point of view, the past form “leste” is a little weird. To this author, present perfect or past perfect would be better, with the proper rearrangements of the syntax. Finally, the word “sannsynligvis” seems odd in a clause of TRU ‘believe’. True, we are talking of small margins and fine nuances here. Still, the instance of SANNSYNLIGVIS represents a break with the last of the two main rules for the sequence of modalities of Norwegian sentences: Either the modal elements (modals, semi-modals, adverbs etc.) “add up” to create the basis of the interpretation as ‘uncertain’, or there is a certain aspect of compositionality, where only certain sequences of modal elements are possible. It is hard to predict what principle applies, and this is, in general, a rather poorly understood part of Norwegian. TRU(SANNSYNLIGVIS) can neither be analysed nor used according to the first principle, nor is it felt to be correct according to the second. What all this boils down to, though, is that we are discussing very complicated aspects of the language that even linguist native language users may have hesitations about. For a foreigner, the risk of getting lost is obvious …

In Holmberg (1993 b) I argue that the thematic subjects is in specTP also in constructions such as (21) and (ii), common in Swedish and Norwegian.

(ii) Jag tror att möjligen Johan har läst den boken. (Swedish) I think that possibly Johan has read this book (Holmberg 1998, 591)

59 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

This author has problems imagining a direct Norwegian equivalent. Possibly “Jeg trur at muligens/kanskje Johan har lest den boka”. Only acceptable with an extraordinary emphasis on “Johan”.

(60) a. at dessverre Jon ikke har lest boka Norwegian that unfortunately J. not has read the-book b. Denne boka har dessverre Jon ikke lest This book has unfortunately J. not read c. at tross alt Jon ikke vil lese disse bøkene that despite everything J. not will read these books d. Disse bøkene vil tross alt Jon ikke lese These books will despite everything J. not read

However, there seems to be considerable variation with respect to the acceptability of the sentences shown in (60). Among the eight speakers of Norwegian consulted, we can roughly find the following patterns of grammaticality judgements.36

(61) A (4 speakers37) B (2 speakers) C (2 speakers) a. √ or ? ?? or * * b. √ √ ?? c. √ or ? ?? or * * d. √ √ ?? (Haeberli 2002, 244) (60) a. and c. are completely ungrammatical (also as parts of complete sentences). How any native language user could have accepted any of them is hard to imagine.

37 Some variation in this group concerns the type of adjunct chosen. One speaker finds (60c) less good than the other examples. Another speaker seems to have more problems with (60a) than with the other cases. Finally, one speaker accepts all examples in (60) but rejects the embedded equivalent to (12i), i.e. a sentence with a temporal adverb between C and the subject in an embedded clause. However, this ban on temporal adverbs is not shared by all the speakers in this group. It would of course be tempting to relate at least some of the variation in (61) to the relatively complex sociolinguistic situation in Norway. At first sight, it is not clear whether such a correlation is possible however. (Haeberli 2002, 244n) This has nothing to do with the sociolinguistic situation of Norway. (In fact, nobody with the slightest knowledge of the situation would ever suggest such a relationship.)

Holmberg (1997, p.c.) observes that in Mainland Scandinavian, a participial main verb can appear in clause-initial position, acting as the [124] ‘first constituent’ for ‘verb-second’ (V2).

60 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(12) (?) Lest har hun den sikkert, men har hun skjønnt noe av den? read has she it surely but has she understood anything of it “She has surely READ it, but has she understood any of it?” (Norwegian)” (Toyoshima 2001, 123f.) Ungrammatical, not just “(?)”. In order to make it “(?)” the word “den” has to be moved to the position right behind Lest: “Lest den”.

“Øystein Nilsen (personal communication) informs us that the following types of examples are relatively acceptable in Norwegian with participles or infinitives:

(i) ?Villeti hadde han nok ikke ti gidd opp. wanted has he probably not given up ‘lit. wanted he has probably not to give up’

(ii) ?Begynnei vil han nok ikke ti a jobbe begin will he probably not to work ‘lit. begin de will probably not to work’ (Koopman and Szabolcsi: 2000, 230n) Hardly. The “lit.” rendering is not what this author thinks must be the intended sense of this impossible Norwegian sentence. Which emphasizes the problem at hand.

(1) (--) b. Släppt in har jag den inte (men jag har satt ut mat åt den). let in have I it not but I have put out food for it ‘I haven’t let it in (but I have put out food for it).’ (---)[149] But in that case they also predict that Norwegian should contrast with Swedish with respect to (1b), since the linear order of verb, object, and particle prior to movement in Norwegian should be sluppet

(3) a. Jeg har ikke sluppet den inn/*sluppet I have not let it in / let inn den. (Norwegian) in it b. Sluppet inn har jeg den ikke. let in have I it not

The prediction is false. V-topicalization/Remnant VP fronting is a marginal phenomenon in Norwegian as in Swedish, but among those Norwegians who accept it, there are those who accept (3b), just as in the case of Swedes and (1b). (Holmberg 2005a, 148f.) To this author, (3b) is ungrammatical. This also holds for his informal panel of non-linguist native speakers of Norwegian.

61 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(226) [context: two people standing next to the body of a girl who has just killed herself by jumping off a high building; person A shakes his head in disbelief and says to person B:] a. Hvorfor (#det)? why thatDEM ‘Why?’ b. Hvorfor er det at hun har gjort det? why is thatDEM thatC° she has done thatDEM ‘Why is it that she has done that?’ [Eastern Norwegian] (Craenenbroeck 2004, 113) b. is ungrammatical for two reasons: The DET construction and the use of perfect, “har gjort” instead of past, “gjorde”. Especially in Eastern Norwegian.

(228) Hvorfor det at Jens har kjøpt ny bil? why thatDEM thatC° Jens has bought new car. ‘Why has Jens bought a new car?’ [Eastern Norwegian] (Craenenbroeck 2004, 114) Ungrammatical. What does this sentence mean?

(48) dette er en type oppgave somi Kalle hevder at om Pelle greide a dies ist ein Typ Aufgabe die Kalle sagt daß ob Pelle Erfolg-hat im

lφse deni/*ti vil vise om han er intelligent lösen sie wird zeigen ob er ist intelligent (Fanselow 1991, 270) Cf. Maling and Zaenen 1982, 235f. above

(101) Jeg vet om jobber som du bruker mer tid på bilen enn vil ta å utfore ___. (N)

‘I know of a-jobi that you spend more time on the-car than will

take to finish Øi’. (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 270) Apart from the nonsensical meaning of this ungrammatical sentence: “jobber” (indefinite plural) is translated as “a-job”.

62 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(12) a. (---) b. De snakket om den prøven som Pelle lurte på om det at Kalle allerede hadde lest {den/*Ø} ville ha noen innvirkning på resultatet. (N) ‘They talked about the exam that Pelle wondered whether (it) that Kalle had already read it would make no difference in the result.’ (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 236) Nonsensical. Ungrammatical even without a “den”. Anacoluthon.

In cases with triple (crossing) extractions, however, a resumptive pronoun is obligatory even in Norwegian.

(13) a. (---) b. Denne gaven her vil du ikke gjette hvem jeg fikk (den) fra ___ (N) ‘This gift can you not guess who I got (it) from ___.’ (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 236) Not only is “den” impossible in this position of a grammatical sentence. “fra” is not idiomatic. AV is the correct preposition in this case (indicating person and not origin, which is the case of FRA).

(14a) denne gaven heri vil du ikke gjette hvemj jeg fikk ti fra tj dieses Gabe hier wirst du nicht raten wem ich bekam von (Fanselow 1991, 326) Not only is “denne gaven her” impossible in this position of a grammatical sentence. “fra” is not idiomatic. AV is the correct preposition in this case (indicating person and not origin, which is the case of FRA). Cf. Maling and Zaenen 1982, 236 above.

(15) Det er politimannen som jeg lurer på hvilke piker dommeren vill vita hvilke droger {han/*Ø} trodde {de/*Ø} hadde solgt {Ø/*den} till barne. (N)

‘This is the policemani that I wonder which girlsj the judge will

want to know which drugsk hei thought theyj had sold ___k to the children.’ (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 237) Repeated later as:

(85) a. Det er politimannen som jeg lurer på hvilke piker dommeren vill vite hvilke droger {*Ø/han} trodde {*Ø/de} hadde solgt {*den/Ø} til barne. (N)

‘This is the policeman1 that I wonder which girls2 the judge will want to know

which drugs3 he1 thought they2 had sold ___3 to the children.’

63 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(Maling and Zaenen 1982, 265)79 Nonsensical. Complicated beyond comprehension. Anacoluthon?

(29) Dette er filmen som jeg ikke vet om noen husker hvem (som) har spilt i (den). (N)

‘This is the filmi that I don’t know if anyone remembers who

played in (iti).’ (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 239 and 266) Interference from Swedish?

(85) a. (---) b. Her er pusher som jeg lurer på hvilke piker dommeren vill vite hvilka stoffer folk hørte ham snakker med dem om Ø.

‘Here is the pusher1 that I wonder which girls2 the judge will

want to know which things3 people heard him1 talk with

them2 about Ø3.’ (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 265) Ungrammatical. Even if the sentence in general had been grammatical, it contains numerous errors at phrase or lexical level, each one sufficient to make the sentence as a whole ungrammatical: Incorrect in this context: “pusher” (indefinite singular). Correct: “den pusheren”. Additionally, “hørte ham snakker” is an error. “snakker” is present. One should have expected an infinitive, “snakke” or past “snakket”.

(77) Dette er den eksamenen som Per sa at hvor godt Lars gjorde det på den ville bestemme om han kommer inn på medisin og som Lars faktisk greide ___ bra. (N). ‘That’s the exam that Peter said that how well Lars does on it would determine whether he gets into med school, and that Lars indeed aced ___.’ (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 263) Ungrammatical. Anacoluthon.

Although the extraposition analysis does not account for the extraction phenomena, it remains to be explained why sentences like (40a) are better than (40b).15

(40) a. Per slipper jeg ikke noen inn som liker Peter let I not anybody in who likes b. ???Per slipper jeg ikke noen som liker inn. Peter let I not anybody who likes in. (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 246) Both sentences are ungrammatical.

79 Observe that the elements within the brackets have changed positions and that the indices are numeric, not alphabetic as in (15).

64 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

15 The following version is also accepted, and in fact, preferred, by my informant:

(i) Per slipper jeg ikke inn noen som liker. Peter let I not in anyone who likes (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 278n) Quite right. It is somewhat odd although grammatical, in contrast to both (40) a. and (40) b.

The following example from Allwood (1976) was accepted by all our Norwegian informants but by none of the Icelandic ones:

(4) a. De blommorna känner jag en man som säljer. (S) b. De blomstene kjenner jeg en mann som selger. (N) c. (---) these flowers know I a man who sells ‘These flowers, I know a man who sells.’ (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 232) According to the authors, the native informants consulted were Per Kristian Halvorsen, Lars Hellan og Svein Lie - all well-known linguists. Still, (4) b. is definitely strange, liable to be acceptable only in a context where somebody is shown a picture of a flower, exclaiming in recognition. Consulting a group of Norwegian non-linguists, the response was totally negative.

(38) Det er Chomsky (som) jeg ikke kjenner noen som lurer på om Marit burde ta et kurs hos. ‘It is Chomsky (that) I don’t know anybody who wonders whether Marit should take a course with.’ (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 245) Incorrect.

(33) a. (---) b. Slike foelsomme politiska fragor har jeg flere studenter som det ikke finnes noen som jeg tror ville våge å prata med om. (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 242) Ungrammatical

(63) Norwegian (Øystein Vangsnes, p.c.) a. ?Hvilken oppdagelsesreisende spurte laereren deg hvilket kontinent _ oppdaget _? (Richards 2001, 77) Incorrect.

Legate (to appear) points out that vPs headed by passive verbs show the same effects. I illustrate with a pair of sentences from Norwegian.2

(8) a. Hvilken av oppgavene som han skrev for Frøken Olsen har

65 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

which of the.assignments as he1 wrote for Miss Olsen2 has hver elev blitt bedt av henne om å skrive om? (Nor- wegian)

every student1 become asked of her2 about to write over ‘Which of the assignments that he wrote for Ms. Olsen has every student been asked by her to write over?’ [p 264] (8) b. Hvilken av oppgavene som han skrev for Frøken Olsen har

which of the.assignments as he1 wrote for Miss Olsen2 has hver elev syntes henne å være fornøyd med?

every student1 seemed her2 to be satisfied with ‘Which of the assignments that he wrote for Ms. Olsen has every student seemed to her to be satisfied with?’ (Svenonius 2004, 263f)

2 See Holmberg 2002; Svenonius 2001a for discussion of whether passive v in Scandinavian is a phase head. (Svenonius 2004, 263n) Incorrect. Neither Legate (2003) nor Holmberg (2002) contain Norwegian examples. Additionally, none of the above examples can be found in Svenonius 2001.

(4) a. Eng Peter went to the movies, but I don’t know who with. Nor Per har gaatt paa kino, men jeg vet ikke hvem med. (Merchant 2000, 1) “hvem med” instead of “med hvem” is definitely odd or worse.

14 Space prevents a full discussion of this phenomenon here, but I note that it is also found in some of the Scandinavian languages (thanks to P. Svenonius for the Norwegian and L. Mikkelsen for the Danish): (i) Per har gått på kino, men jeg vet ikke hvem med [Norwegian] Per er gået i biografen, men jeg ved ikke hvem med. [Danish] Per has/is gone to cinema but I know not who with ‘Per went to the movies but I don’t know who with.’ (Merchant 2001, 64n) “hvem med” instead of “med hvem” is definitely odd or worse.

(20) a. (---) [296] b. %Per gikk på kino, men jeg veit ikke hvem med. Norwegian Per went to cinema but I know not who with ‘Per went to the movies but I don’t know who with.’ (Merchant 2002, 296)

66 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

The “%” seems to indicate a uncertainty on the part of the grammarian. However, “hvem med” instead of “med hvem” is definitely odd if not worse.80

(8 c) Norwegian:

Bordeti tok han en bok fra table-the take.Past he a book from

hylla og [la på ti]. shelf-the and put.Past on ‘The table, he took a book from the shelf and put [it) on’ (Déchaine 1993, 801) As her sources, Déchaine invokes “(---) for Norwegian (Creider 1986; Åfarli Creider 1987; Johnsen 1988; den Dikken 1991).” This author has been unable to find this sentence in Åfarli and Creider 1987 and Johnsen 1988.

(74) (ex. (28) from Åfarli 1994, p. 89) (---) b. som-relative Det av husa som Jon bor that of houses-the SOM Jon lives ‘the house where Jon lives’ (Bhatt 2002, 82) The preposition, “i”, is missing in final position.81 (Correct in Åfarli 1994, 89.)82

(2) a. (---) b. Hvilke bøker spurte Jon hvem (som) hadde skrevet? (N) c. (---) what books asked John who (that) (had) written ‘What books did the teacher ask who had written?’

(3) a. (---) b. Hvem vet du ikke om Jon sa på kino? (N) c. (---) who do-you-not-know whether John saw at movies ‘Who don’t you know whether John saw at the movies?’ (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 232) Strange sentences. Difficult to decide whether they are ungrammatical or unacceptable both according to Chomskyan definitions or in a traditional sense. (2) b. may be correct in a situation where a deaf asks somebody the third time about what books.

80 The change to (an equally correct “veit” is immaterial to the question of grammaticality. 81 Repeated e.g. in Bhatt’s handout “Three theories of relative clauses” at the LOT summer school 2005, Universiteit Leiden. Cf. below. 82 28 a. Det av husa som Jon bor i, er ganske falleferdig.

67 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(34b) hvilke bφker spurte Jon hvem (som) hadde skrevet? (Fanselow 1991, 223) Strange sentence. Copy of Maling and Zaenen’s (2) b (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 231).

The infinitival PRO subject in (109b) corresponds to det in the finite counterpart in (109a). In both cases we find a postverbal correlate NP, så mange tilhörere. Assuming that no nominative NP can surface in a (non-ECM) infinitival complement, this postverbal NP can only be licenced by Accusative Case. (---). (109) a. det var ikke lett å få det til [at det komme så mange tilhörere] it was not easy to arrange it at that it come so many listeners [50] b. det var ikke lett å få det til [å PRO komme så mange tilhörere] it was not easy to arrange it at to come so many listeners (Hoekstra and Mulder 1990, 49f.) Error: The second “det” of (109a) and (109b) – in “få det til” – renders the sentences ungrammatical. (Admitting for a finite verb form instead of the infinitive “komme”, cf. above.

A more striking piece of evidence is found in sentences such as those in (6), which are mentioned in Askedal (1986). (---)

(6) a. Det ble påstott å komme mange tilhörere it was claimed to come(ACC) many listeners (---) (Hoekstra 1990, 213) Ungrammatical. As mentioned above, Askedal 1986 does not contain an identical sentence.

(8) a. Det ble påstott å ha repariert bilen it was claimed to have repaired the car” b. Det var ikke lett å få det til å repariere bilen it was not easy to get it to to repair the car (Hoekstra 1990, 213) Ungrammatical.

(71) a. (---) c. Han hadde foresatt seg aldri å slå hunden. he had decided himself never to beat the dog (Norwegian) He had decided never to beat the dog. (Platzack 1986, 215)

68 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

FORESATT SEG may be construed as a form of the separable verb SETTE SEG FORE.83 As such, it is hardly grammatical - at any rate extremely infrequent.84 This may be why this sentence looks odd to this author as well as to other native users.

Platzack (1986), following Kayne (1981), observes that the same pattern holds in Scandinavian languages. Consider the control complements in (2.18) and the ECM complements in (2.19). (2.18) (---) c. Han hadde foresatt seg [ aldri å slå hunden] he had decided himself never beat the dog (Norwegian) ‘He had decided never to beat the dog.’ Platzack (1986, 215) (---) (2.19) (---) [34] e. Jag anser [ meg *(å) ha rett] I think me have right (Norwegian) (---) ‘I believe myself to be right.’ Platzack (1986, 218) (Watanabe 1996, 33f) Odd. Cf Platzack 1986, 215 and 218.

(9) b. John synnes ham [vaere en god venn] (Hoekstra 1995, 121) The infinitival marker, Å, is missing.

(32) a. Det gi-s løsning på problem-et. it gives-PASS solution to problem-the ‘There is a solution to the problem.’ (Norwegian) (Newman 1996, 166) “gis” is understandable, although not idiomatically correct. “fins” or “finnes” (of FINNES ‘exist’) is the correct lexical item. At a syntactical level, “en” (indefinite article) is missing. One corresponding correct sentence would be: “Det fins en løsning på problemet.”

(72) a. (---) b. Kalle, jeg liker inte den tullingen! (N) (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 261) Hardly grammatical as one sentence.

83 There is no corresponding inseparable verb FORESETTE SEG. 84 A quick search (21 March 2006) gave as its result 16 unique tokens on the entire internet (including both HAR FORESATT SEG and HADDE FORSATT SEG) of which only 8 had an infinitive with an infinitival marker Å as their complement.

69 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

12 Exceptional in this regard are vocative constructions, such as dumme idioten ‘stupid idiot’, in which the definite suffix does appear despite the lack of a determiner (as pointed out to me by Arild Hestvik). (---) (Svenonius 1993, 208n) Error: A definite article “den” is missing. Correct: “den dumme idioten!”.

Svenonius (1993: 208), (---), provides the following example from Norwegian: (i) dumme idioten! Stupid idiot-the (Kester 1996, 146n) Repeating Svenonius’ error, cf. above.

(33) Norwegian a. John hadde ingen venn John had no:UTR friend b. Der var intet brød there was no:NEUT bread (Bernini and Ramat 1996, 194) a. is a rather strange sentence, only acceptable in special contexts. To judge by the other sentences in Bernini and Ramat 1996, it is the result of bad translation. Its Swedish counterpart is “John hadde ing-a venner”. (I.e. ‘(---) no friends’ (plural). Correct Swedish is “hade” and “vänner”. b. is identical to the corresponding Danish example. Such sentences are felt to be archaic in present-day written Norwegian - more or less ungrammatical.

(---) in Swedish and Norwegian it appears that possessivization of the object is generally well tolerated with ‘description’:

(ii) Johans beskrivning Johan’s description

In (ii) in fact, Johans is ambiguous between the agent and theme reading. (Giorgi and Longobardi 1991, 251n) The sentence is in Swedish. In a Norwegian translation, “Johans beskrivelse”, only what Giorgi and Langobardi call a “agent reading” is possible although somewhat weird. Less so if we put it in the right context, e.g. “Johans beskrivelse av raneren stemte helt med det konstruerte bildet.” ‘Johan’s description of the robber agreed completely with the robot portrait.’ A “theme reading” is not grammatical in Modern Norwegian.

(56) a. ?Ødeleggelsen av skipet for å heve forsikringen er uhørt The destruction of the ship to collect the insurance is outrageous b. *Skipets ødeleggelse for å heve forsikringen er uhørt The ship’s destruction... (Giorgi and Longobardi 1991, 136)

70 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

The two sentences are equally ungrammatical. “Ødeleggelsen av skipet” in isolation is a little odd yet grammatical in certain contexts in Present-Day Nor- wegian, e.g. as a title.

As already stated, there is a gradual transition between what is felt to be more or less correct and what is odd whatever the reason.

Odd sentences

(35) a. (---) b. Den egentlige meg ville ikke. The actual me-ACC would not ‘The actual me would not.’ (Schütze 2001, 227) “Den egentlige meg”?

(97) a. Hunden är {bunden/*bundna}. (Swe) b. Hunden er {bundet/*bundne} (Nor) c. Hunden er {bundet/*bundne} (Dan) the.dog is tied.SG/tied.PL (98) a. Hundarna är {*bunden/bundna}. (Swe) b. Hundene er {bundet/*bundne} (Nor) c. Hundene er {bundet/*bundne} (Dan) the.dogs are tied.PL/tied. (Svenonius 1994, 3/51) Apart from the graphic oddity of representing singular/plural as options: “Hunden er bunden” is a normal alternative to (97) b., while “Hundene er bundne” perhaps is to be preferred to (98) b. Agreement is one of many sub- systems of Norwegian where native speakers’ intuition is notoriously vague in most part of the country.

- Norvégien: God kaffi, dette! (Feuillet 1998, 679) A linguistic curiosity. This author can’t imagine any native speaker saying such a sentence. The example gives the impression of some stylistic error. It may have appeared in a literary text one century ago as mannerism, probably as a calque of a similar expression in another language.

(3) (---) c. Det bli troet at Jon ikke var på kontoret it was believed that John not was in the office (Hoekstra 1990, 212) Odd in any conceivable correct form (cf. above), e.g. “Det ble trodd at Jon ikke var på kontoret.” Because of the impersonal DET construction. No native, non-

71 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

linguist user of Norwegian would ever say or write such a sentence, although everybody will understand what is intended.

(ii) Jeg leter etter noen å gi blomster. I look for somebody to give flowers (den Dikken 1995, 185n) A preposition, “til”, is not obligatory, still it is felt to be missing as the final constituent of the sentence.

(18) en mann som vi forespeilet t at p ikke ville bli arrestert a man that we held-out-the-prospect-to that not would become arrested ‘a man that we promised t that (he) wouldn’t be arrested’ (Engdahl 1985, 12) Odd. At the outset, a full NP (and not just a personal pronoun) as indirect object is special. The effect of extracting the NP indirect object and the form of the direct object (a that-clause) does not reinforce the grammaticality of the sentence. Additionally, it appears that the verb FORESPEILE is more acceptable in the passive in present-day Norwegian.

(71) a. På gulvet satte han ned katten t. on the-ground put he down the-cat (den Dikken 1995, 65) Odd. More acceptable with a long, “heavy” object NP because of the preposed PP. However, a certain “solemn” content would also be required to fit the syntax. Just “katten” makes the sentence a slightly nonsensical.

(19) (---) c. */??Han skar kjøttet rått up (Haider 1997, 11) No doubt about it: This sentence is simply unacceptable.

(32) a. at han skari kjøttet [ei i biter] [Nor.] that he cuts meat-the to pieces

b. at han [skar i biter]i kjøttet ei (Haider 1997, 18) b. is odd. To the present author, the clause would have been quite acceptable with he phrase “i stykker” both in a. and b. However, with “biter”, only a. is fully acceptable.

(8) a. Jeg tror at på brevet ble klistret frimerker. I believe that on the-letter be pasted stamps (den Dikken and Næss 1993, 307)

72 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Odd. A formal subject DET missing. Furthermore, there is a certain disproportion between the position of the NP “på brevet”, giving the sentence a “solemn” if not a straightforward archaic flair, and the trivial content of the sentence.

(13) (---) a. På denne veggen lot jeg bli hengt opp et bilde av grunnleggeren vår. on this wall let/make I be hung up a portrait of the-founder our b. ?Nedover denne bakken har jeg aldri sett komme trillende en barnevogn. down this hill have I never seen come rolling a baby carriage (den Dikken and Næss 1993, 309) Odd. A formal subject DET missing in both sentences. A certain disproportion between the syntactic order of b. and its trivial yet too specific (“diger”) content.

(14) (---) b. (Jeg tror at) på bordet ble plassert bøker. I believe that on the-table be put books c. (Jeg tror at) nedover bakken kom trillende en diger barnevogn. I believe that down the-hill come rolling a huge baby carriage (den Dikken and Næss 1993, 309) Odd. A formal subject DET missing in both sentences. A certain disproportion between the syntactic order of both sentences and their trivial (and in the case of c.: too specific) content. It is also difficult to imagine a world where the use of TRO ‘believe’ does not confer a certain anomaly to the sentence at a modal level.

(15) a. Jeg tror at Jon (plutselig) leste (plutselig) boken. I believe that Jon suddenly read suddenly the-book b. Jeg tror at boken (*plutselig) leste Jon (plutselig). I believe that the-book suddenly read Jon suddenly c. Jeg tror at nedover bakken (*plutselig) kom (plutselig) I believe that down the-hill suddenly come suddenly trillende en diger barnevogn. rolling a huge baby carriage (den Dikken and Næss 1993, 310) Odd. In a., “leste plutselig boken” is definitely odd, and so is b. In c., a DET is missing, and the position of “nedover bakken” is awkward. It is also difficult to imagine a world where the use of TRO ‘believe’ does not confer a certain anomaly to the sentence at a modal level.

(23) Hun/??Henne ble klistret en tøybit på. she(NOM)/her(NON-NOM) be pasted a patch of fabric onto

73 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(den Dikken and Næss 1993, 314) Odd. Basically because of a DET missing, but also because of our knowledge of the world. This sentence is certainly not true in a world central to most native users.

(24) (---) b. Hvordan tror du at brevet ble klistret frimerker på? how believe you that the-letter be pasted stamps on (den Dikken and Næss 1993, 315) Odd. Basically because of our knowledge of the world. However, a corresponding sentence such as “Hvordan tror du at barnet ble skiftet bleier på?” is only marginally acceptable

(28) a. ?Hvilket land tror du at brevet ble klistret [frimerker which country believe you that the-letter be pasted stamps fra t] på? from on (den Dikken and Næss 1993, 317) Odd. Very much a linguist’s sentence. Any native speaker would have expressed the same content in a different – and simpler – way.

(35) a. ?Aksjonærene ble sendt ut møteprogrammet til. the-stockholders be sent out the-schedule to (den Dikken and Næss 1993, 319) Odd.

(40) a. Jeg tror at i banken ble hevet penger. I believe that in the-bank be cashed money b. Jeg tror at i badet ble sunget en sang. I believe that in the-bathroom be sung a song (den Dikken and Næss 1993, 321) Odd. One formel subject DET missing. Strange content. In the sense that no native speaker would ever express such a “trivial” content in such an officialese way. Only as a joke.

(i) Jeg tror at denne pennen ble skrevet et brev med. I believe that this pen be written a letter with (den Dikken and Næss 1993, 321n) Odd. One formel subject DET missing. Strange content.

(i) a. Denne idrettsplassen er ikke blitt spilt golf på. (---) (den Dikken and Næss 1993, 325n) Odd. One formel subject DET missing. Strange content. 85

85 Literally: ‘This arena/stadium has not been played golf on’.

74 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(53) Jeg spurte om det på brevet ble klistret frimerker. I wondered whether it(EXPL) on the-letter be pasted stamps (den Dikken and Næss 1993, 327) Odd. There is a certain disproportion between the position of the NP “på brevet”, giving the sentence an archaic flair, and the trivial content of the sentence.

(55) a. Jeg tror at det på brevet ble klistret frimerker. I believe that it(EXPL) on the-letter be pasted stamps b. Jeg tror at det i banken ble hevet penger. I believe that it(EXPL) in the-bank be cashed money c. Jeg tror at det i badet ble sunget en sang. I believe that it(EXPL) in the-bath be sung a song (den Dikken and Næss 1993, 329) Odd. Basically for “lexical” reason and because of our knowledge of the world: Nobody would ever say nor write such sentences about such situations.

(56) a. Hvor mange barnevogner tror du at det nedover how many baby carriages believe you that it(EXPL) down bakken kom trillende. hill come rolling b. Hvordan tror du at det nedover bakken kom trillende how believe you that it(EXPL) down the-hill come rolling en diger barnevogn? a huge baby carriage (den Dikken and Næss 1993, 329) Odd. a.: A certain disproportion between the syntactic order of the sentence and its trivial content Sounds like a nursery rhyme. b. Really odd. Same as a. but worse. Officialese and a content that it will not be appropriate to express in any conceivable situation.

(19) Bare Jon respekterer seg selv. only Jon Respects self self ‘Only Jon respects himself... (Richards 1997, 183) This sentence gives no sense to a non-linguist native speaker. It seems to be a quotation from a Norwegian grammarian, though.

(26) Montague kan jeg ikke huske om {*han/Ø} døde i Kalifornia (N) ‘Montague I can’t remember if (*he) died in California.’ (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 239) Odd.

(24) (---) b. Det er den teorien, som ingen vet nøyaktig, hva Bohr syntes om.

75 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(---) ‘This is the theory, that no one knows exactly what Bohr thought of (it).’ (Maling 1978a, 87) Odd.

(22) (---) b. Det er det skuespillet, som ingen vet, hvem først oppdaget, at Ibsen hadde skrevet. (---) ‘This is the play, that no one knows who first discovered that Ibsen wrote.’ (Maling 1978a, 86) Odd. “først” adds to the pecularity.

(32) Dette er de diktene som laererin spurte oss hvem vi trodde hadde skrevet. (N) ‘These are the poems that the teacher asked us who we thought had written.’ (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 241) Repeated later as:

(101) Dette er de diktene som laererin spurte oss hvem vi trodde hadde skrivet. (N) (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 245) Odd.

(45) a. Hvilken foreleser syntes alle at _ burde innbys? Which speaker did all think that _ ought to be invited? b. Hvem syntes at hvilken foreleser burde innbys? Who thought that which speaker ought to be invited? (Engdahl 1988a, 81) This sentence is acceptable on very specific conditions only: extraordinary intonation and accentuation of “Hvilken” as a third attempt to dispel confusion as to what a crowd actually means when everybody has been shouting all at once. I.e. a particular metalinguistic use of the words and phrases in question.

(14) a. Mannen som jeg møtte i går som The man that I met yesterday that jeg fortalte deg om er en berømt fysiker.

76 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

I told you about is a famous physicist. (Maling 1978b, 722) Hardly acceptable. The second relative clause, “som jeg fortalte deg om” is not felt to be a regular embedded clause, but an inserted element, not planned for at the outset of the sentence. This is no linear complex sentence, as the second relative sentence has to be construed as a correction on behalf of the speaker. (In writing, such an unplanned sentence construction is inconceivable - and definitely not acceptable.) Thus, any adequate analysis of this sentence cannot be exploited in an argumentation presupposing linearity.

(20) Det finns substantivforekomster vi ikke engang vet it exists noun occurrences we not even know [om e skall klassifiseres som mengdetermer eller ikke.] if shall classify-PASS as mass terms or not ‘There are noun occurrences that we don’t even know if they should be classified as mass terms or not.’ (Engdahl 1985, 13) Odd. Also rather peculiar from a lexical point of view.

(22) Men deti har jeg ikke sagt noe om hvordanj ei gjøres ej. but it have I not said anything about how do-PASS ‘But that I haven’t said anything about how it is done.’ (Engdahl 1985, 13) Odd. Something wrong as far as the sequence of modalities is concerned. “skal gjøres” seems more appropriate.

(17) (---) b. Det er melodien, som ingen visste, hvem skrev ___. (---) ‘This is the song that no one knew who wrote.’ (Maling 1978a, 84) Odd. “den” missing: “den melodien”. Instead of “skrev” (past form of SKRIVE ‘write’), one should have expected “hadde skrevet” (past perfect). This fact seems to be related to the movement, as “Hvem (var det som) skreiv denne melodien?” is a correct sentence. In fact, this example shows the very fine limit

77 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

between the acceptable and unacceptable - and how difficult it is to explain why in a foreign language...

(19) (---) b. Det er melodien, som Jan spurte, hvem skrev ___. (---) ‘This is the song, that John asked who wrote ___. (Maling 1978a, 84) Odd. As for missing “den” and “skrev” instead of “hadde skrevet”, cf. above.

(24) Hvem tror du at skulle vinne? (N) ‘Who do you think that will win?’ (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 249) Odd.

(51a) hvem tror du at skulle vinne? wer denkst du daß soll gewinnen (Fanselow 1991, 333) Odd. Copied from Maling and Zaenen 1982, 249. Additionally, this example contains a certain anomaly as far as the sequence of modalities is concerned: An extensive correct interpretation will be ‘Who do you think that should have won according to a certain plan or decision of a not specified person.’ This author has problems construing a situation where such a sentence will be correctly used.

(19) Desse konstruksjonar trur eg at t er meir naturlege uttrykksmåtar. these constructions think I that are more natural expressions ‘These constructions, I think that they are more natural expressions.’ (Engdahl 1985, 13) Double determination missing. Particularly awkward since the written standard of Nynorsk is adapted, double determination with postposed possessive adjective is semi-compulsory: “Desse konstruksjonane”.

(43) Norw. Desse konstruksjonar trur eg at _ er meir naturlege uttrykksmåtar. These constructions think I that _ are more natural expressions. (Engdahl 1988a, 81) Double determination missing. Particularly awkward since the written standard of Nynorsk is adapted, double determination with postposed possessive adjective is semi-compulsory: “Desse konstruksjonane”.

(77b) desse konstruksjonar trur jeg at er meir naturlege uttrykksmåta diese Konstruktionen denke ich daß sind mehr natürliche Ausdrucksmittel (Fanselow 1991, 338) Odd. Also from a lexical point of view. An inexact copy of Engdahl 1988a, 81 b. Desse konstruksjonar trur eg at t er meir naturlege uttryksmåtar.

78 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

These constructions think I that are more natural expressions (from Engdahl 1984:12, (29)) (Vikner 1995, 60) Cf. Engdahl 1985, 13.

(73) En man kom inn *(som) var fra India (Pesetsky 1982, 325) Odd.

(89) Noen så ikke en del ting. somebody saw NEG a part thing (Bernini and Ramat 1996, 145) The syntactic positions represented by an indefinite pronoun and a generalized, vague expression.

(105) (---)

d. Denne forfattareni husker jeg ikke hvaj _i

this authori I don’t remember what

har oversatt _j til norsk. has translated to Norwegian (Engdahl 1986, 123) The lexical item “forfattaren” is most unfortunate. This author was unable to accept this sentence before he had substituted “forfattaren” for a different noun, as “forfattaren”, ‘author.the’, is normally associated with the author of what has been translated, not the translator ...

(72) bøkene om syntaks til den gutten som står der borte the books of syntax of the boy who is there (Giorgi and Longobardi 1991, 202) The semantic content of the sentence is not consistent with our knowledge of the world: Only “professoren” ‘the professor’ instead of “gutten” ‘the ladd’ will render this sentence fully acceptable.

37 In Norwegian the class of verbs that trigger reanalysis is somewhat different from that in French. In Norwegian there is a class of verbs that allow the short form of the reflexive (the clitic seg). As in Dutch, these verbs can be characterized as the verbs that take an “affected” object (see Zubizarreta (1987)). It is this class of verbs that allow for a definite inalienable phrase in direct object position (we owe this observation to L. Johnsen): (i) De vasket seg/ansiktet. They washed self/the face (ii) De barberte seg/skjegget. They shaved self/the beard (iii)De reiste seg/hodet. They raised self/the head

79 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Compare these examples with (iv)-(v). (iv) Han stolte på seg selv/*seg. He trusted himself/*self (v) Han stolte på sitt hode/*hodet. He trusted his head/*the head (Vergnaud and Zubizarreta 1992, 622n) “De barberte skjegget.” is a slightly odd sentence to most Norwegians. Contrary to its English equivalent, the object of Norwegian BARBERE ‘shave’ refers typically to the part of the body that is being treated, not what is being disposed of: “Han barberte haka.” ‘He shaved his chin’. On the other hand, this author finds “Han stolte på hodet.” just as (ab)normal as “Han stolte på sitt hode.” Only acceptable in very specific contexts.

(119) norvégien (Vergnaud & Zubizarreta 1992: 622) a. De vasket ansiktet. / De barberte skjegget. Eux lavèrent le:visage eux rasèrent la:barbe b. Han stolte på sitt hode. (*Han stolte på hodet.). lui fit.confiance à sa tête (König and Haspelmath 1998, 576) Cf. Vergnaud and Zubizarreta 1992, 622n above.

[56] det komm ein student på grunn av sine karakterar vint un étudiant à cause de son/REFL note «Il est venu un étudiant au sujet de sa note» [57] eg såg ein student på grunn av hans karakterar je vis son «J’ai vu un étudiant au sujet de sa note» (Lazard 2001 [1994], 236) Double determination missing. Particularly awkward since the written standard of Nynorsk is adapted, double determination with postposed possessive adjective is semi-compulsory: “karakterane sine” and “karakterane hans”. Odd for lexical reasons as well: A similar sentence “Det kom en student på grunn av depresjonen sin.” seems more natural for a physician summing up a day’s work. In other words, a very specific context is needed to render even this sentence acceptable.

[57] eg såg ein student på grunn av hans karakterar je vis son «J’ai vu un étudiant au sujet de sa note» (Lazard 2001 [1994], 236) Odd. If the meaning is ‘I saw a student (with my own eyes/literally) because of his notes’, i.e. ‘I didn’t recognise him in the crowd before I knew that he was the one with extraordinary notes etc.’, the sentence is grammatical – although hardly

80 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

acceptable in any normal context. On the other hand “au sujet de” seems to indicate that another interpretation is intended: ‘I met him in order to talk with him about his notes’. In that case, the sentence is unacceptable. “såg” (past form of SJÅ ‘see’ in Nynorsk) cannot be used this way. The sentence is probably a result of interference from English.86

(1) a. Han så [VP (aldri) tv [SC analysen løse oppgaven] (*aldri)] He saw never the.analysis solve the assignment never ‘He (never) saw the analysis solve the assignment’

b. Han så [VP (*aldri) tv [SC den løse oppgaven] (*aldri)] he saw never it solve the.assignment never ‘He saw (*never) it solve the assignment’ (Svenonius 2005a, 217) (1a) is definitely a strange sentence. Something about the lexical combination is wrong ...

Norwegian (Haga 1976). Norwegian, an SVO language, has a minor movement rule Haga names Light-Pronoun Shift. (---)

(116) Winston utbedret visst skaden ved dugnad Winston repaired “I think” the damage through volunteer work Winston repaired the damage through volunteer work (117) Winston utbedret den visst ved dugnad Winston repaired it I think through volunteer work. Winston repaired it I think through volunteer work. (Tomlin 1986, 65) One feature adding to the oddity of these two sentences is the preposition phrase “ved dugnad”. Idiomatically incorrect. “ved å holde dugnad”, “på siste dugnad” etc. will produce a correct sentence.

Although pure existentials usually become degraded when temporally modified, there are examples where spatio-temporal anchoring is fine:

(38) (---) No b. Nettopp nå fins det ikke dinosaurer, men det fantes dinosaurer før. just now find-MP this not dinosaurs, but this found-MP dinosaurs before

86 A reference to Faarlund seems to indicate that these Norwegian sentences are drawn (in identical form?) from unpublished material produced for the project Typologie des langues en Europe where both Lazard and Faarlund participated. (Jan Terje Faarlund p.c.)

81 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

“Just now there are no dinosaurs, but earlier there used to be dinosaurs. (Czinglar 2001, 103) Odd. Something missing. A specific indication of the location? “Nettopp nå” creates the impression of the dinosaurs being temporarily away.

(68) No a. ??Det fins også noe gratis, gjør det ikke? this find-MP also something for free, does it not (Czinglar 2001, 122) Slightly odd. Still, more acceptable than another sentence of hers, qualified by means of a similar “??”: The result of interference from German? (Cf. Czinglar 2001, 123)

(74) No ??I går fantes det varm vin foran universitetet. in yesterday found-MP this warm wine in-front-of university-DEF (Czinglar 2001, 123) Odd. No native user would have used a form of FINNES ‘exist’ in such a sentence. What is intended must be “kunne en få kjøpt” ‘one could buy’, “solgte en” ‘was for sale’ or the like.The sentence is liable to be the result of interference, probably from German: “Gestern gab es Glühwein vor der Universität.”

(12) Norwegian a. Vi leste ikke dem. b. Vi leste dem ikke. we read (them) not (them) (Deprez 1994, 106) Adverb in the wrong place. a. is definitely odd without an exceptional stress or an extraordinary written kontext.

(60) a. De leser {alltid / egentlig/desverre /ikke} avisa (Nor) they read always/actually/unfortunately/not the.newspaper ‘They {always/actually/unfortunately/don’t} read the newspaper’ b. De leser desverre alltid avisa. they read unfortunately always the.newspaper ‘They unfortunately always read the newspaper’ (Svenonius 1994, 3/35 a. is a little odd with “ dessverre”,87 and incomprehensible with “egentlig”. In order to make them acceptable, an explicit context is required: “De leser dessverre avisa [med et fordumsfullt sinn]. ‘(---) with a biased mind’. “De leser egentlig avisa [bare på lørdager].” ‘(---) on Saturdays only’. b. is odd. Only acceptable with a “heavy” continuation, e.g. “De leser dessverre alltid avisa [som ligger på matta til naboen før han står opp og får tatt den inn om morgenen].” ‘(---) lying on the mat before our neighbour manages to awake and fetch it every morning’.

87 "desverre" is mispelled, cf. above.

82 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

I.e. in order to make this sentence acceptable, a few “heavy” phrases must be added. As they are, both sentences above are in defiance with the “weight principle” of Norwegian syntax.

(109) [CP I går tokj [IP griseni tj [VPjo [VP ti tj en dusj ]]]] (Nor) yesterday took the.pig indeed a shower ‘Yesterday, the pig did take a shower’ (Svenonius 1994, 2/62) In order to make this sentence acceptable, a few “heavy” phrases must be added, e.g. “som ingen her på gården noensinne har sett maken til ...” As it is, the sentence is in defiance with the “weight principle” of Norwegian syntax. (Only a metaphorical reading is possible, due to our knowledge of the world.)

(25) (---)  * Ø  b. Han er redd nok   ulver.  for  He is afraid enough of wolves. (Maling 1983, 264) Unacceptable in isolation. Only correct Norwegian in a context of the type “(Han er redd nok for ulver), om du ikke skulle sleppe inn en bjørn eller to også.” ‘(---), so letting in a bear or two will give him a terrible shock’.

(8.132) a. Så provoserer Salomes mannshunger fortsatt dagens publikum. so provokes Salome’s man-hunger still the-day’s audience ‘Then Salome’s hunger for men still provokes today’s audiences.’ b. Så provoserer fortsatt Salomes mannshunger dagens publikum. so provokes still Salome’s man-hunger the-day’s audience ‘Then Salome’s hunger for men still provokes today’s audiences.’ (Ernst 2002, 434) According to Ernst, these examples are drawn from Svenonius 2000, which turns out to be Svenonius 2002a, 221, where almost identical sentences are given:88

(39) a. Så provoserer Salomes mannshunger fortsatt dagens publikum. so provokes Salome’s man.hunger still the.day’s audience ‘Then Salome’s hunger for men still provokes today’s audiences.’ b. Så provoserer fortsatt Salomes mannshunger dagens publikum. so provokes still Salome’s man.hunger the.day’s audience (Svenonius 2002a, 221) These sentences bear all the signs of being literary quotations from old- fashioned Dano-Norwegian sources at least one century ago. (No precise reference is given.) As such, they are hard to understand for any contemporary

88 In Svenonius 2002a, 221, there is no English translation of the b. sentence.

83 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

native speaker of Norwegian - as they are for the grammarian himself, cf. the English translation.

(33) (---) b. Jon sa Marit at hun ga en presang. John said Marit that she gave a present ‘John, Mary said that she gave a present.’ (Larson 1988, 356) Nonsensical. Something seems to be missing since “present” is some sort of “default” thing to give. Most important, though, this author and his informants all have problems recognising such a sentence as Norwegian, giev that “Jon” is to be construed as the indirect object of “gave”. According to Larson, the source is Arild Hestvik (person communication).

Also, A-bar movement of shifted IOs is permitted in Norwegian (Larson (1988:356)):

(119) (---)

b. Joni sa Marit t’’i at hun ga [VP t’i [VP en presang [V’ ti ]]]

Jondat said Marit that shenom gave a presentacc (Müller 1995b, 234) Nonsensical. Something seems to be missing. Yet, no known part of a possible original sentence or context has been omitted.

Absurdities

(iii) ??Dei undredes hvorfor bildet av hverandrei var solgt They wonder why the picture of each other was sold (Everaert 1986, 253n) No doubt about it. This is an incompehensible and thus completely unacceptable sentence. Apart from that, the past form “undredes”, a marked archaic form, is translated as ‘wonder’ (present).

(169) (---) c. Jeg lurer på hvem (* som) du synes [t ser mest]. I wonder who that you think looks most (Taraldsen 1978:633-634) (Ogawa 2001, 87) Nonsensical. Thus, it is difficult to decide whether the sentence is grammatical or not. Now, according to the author, (169) is an adoptation of Taraldsen 1978b, 634. Given that the sentence is based on Taraldsens sentence (52): “*Jeg lurer på hvem som du synes ser mest svensk ut.” the essential final part, “svensk ut”, is missing. Not by chance, though, to judge from the English rendering.

84 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

In the periphrastic construction, e.g. Norwegian lysene blir lyset ‘the lights are lit’, the event referred to is a specific one. With the corresponding MM construction, on the other hand, lysene lyses ‘the lights are lit’, the implication of a recurrent state of affairs, which can be made explicit with the addition of a habitual temporal modifier such as hver kveld ‘every evening’. (Kemmer 2002, 149) Both “lysene blir lyset” and “lysene lyses” are ungrammatical. Correct translations of the English renderings back to Norwegian will be “lysene blir tent” and “lysene tennes” respectively. The verb LYSE in the sense ‘liight, shine’ is intransitive. There exists a homonymous transitive verb with a remotely related meaning, though: ‘make known, publish’. However, under no circumstances can the verb be inflected “lyset”. The past participle of LYSE is lyst.

Incorrect interpretation

(19) at det ikke var skote noe fuglar that he not has shot any birds (Hoekstra 1990, 217) The Norwegian sentence is in the passive. The English gloss is in the active, and introduces a subject “he”, which has no counterpart in the Norwegian sentence.

One particular manifestation of lack of understanding is erroneous indexing.

(26 a) Olaj kan jeg ikke skønne

[hvaj ej sier ej]

(26 b) *Olaj I don’t understand

[whatj ej says ej] (Engdahl 1988a, 15) (Haider 1993, 643) The indexation is wrong, as both “Ola” and “hva” as well as their corresponding empty positions all have the same index.89

28 c) Hvilke malerierj har ikke Petter noen

veggj ȧ henge topp ej pȧ ej which paintings has not Peter any wall to hang up on (Haider 1993, 643) Incomprehensible indexation. Both “malerier” and “vegg” have the same index, j, as the traces “e” and “e”. In both the above cases, poor proofreading is also a possibility, although the overall standard of the examples seems to indicate a lack of linguistic competence on behalf of the author – and his source. Cf. Engdahl 1988b, 19.

89 Engdahl (1988b, 15) contains the correct indexation: “Olai kan jeg ikke skjønne hvaj ei sier ej” and “*Olai I don’t understand whatj ei says ej”.

85 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Other misunderstandings are subtler:

Holmberg (1986) notes (but does not [119] explain) the fact that pronouns that are modified by PPs cannot undergo object shift. The following paradigm shows this for Norwegian37, 38

(51) a. Jeg liker ham ikke. I like him not

b. Jeg liker ikke han med langt haring. I like not him with long hair ‘I don’t like him with long hair.’39

c. *Jeg like han med langt haring ikke. I like him with long hair not

d. *Jeg liker han ikke med langt haring. i like him not with long hair (Koopman 1999, 118f)

39 The star stands for the interpretation ‘I don’t like the person with long hair’, not for a small clause construal ‘I don’t like him when he has long hair’. (Koopman 1999, 129) Apart from the fact that “like” in c. has been corrected to “liker” and that the full stops are missing, these examples are rendered in the same way in the reprinted version Koopman 2000 (104f.). Whatever these sentences are supposed to mean (and reading “like” as “liker” in c., cf. above, and “haring” as “hår” in all the sentences): c. is wrong no matter the semantic interpretation. d., on the contrary, is correct in Koopman’s second interpretation, just as she contends.

On the other hand, incorrect interpretations may be more concrete:

(2.65) Han hente barnai og ba *(demi) PROi feie.

He call.PAST children.DEF.Pli and order.PAST *(themi) PROi sweep ‘He called the children and ordered them (the children) to sweep.’

(2.66) Han hente barnai og ba *(demi) PROi om å feie.

He call.PAST children.DEF.Pli and order.PAST *(themi) PROi to sweep ‘He called the children and ordered them (the children) to sweep.’ (Larson 2005, 30) Error: “ordered” is not the equivalent of “ba” (of BE). The correct translation will be ‘asked them to’ or ‘told them to’.

[56] det komm ein student på grunn av sine karakterar vint un étudiant à cause de son/REFL note “Il est venu un étudiant au sujet de sa note”

86 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(Lazard 2001 [1994], 236) Error: “karakterar” (indefinite plural) translated as “note”, i.e. singular..

(12) (---) c. Vi leste ikke artikkeln. d. *Vi leste artikkeln ikke. we read (the papers) not (the papers) (Deprez 1994, 106) Despite the error, “artikkeln” is easily recognised as definite form plural. I.e. ”the paper” in English.

(9) Det har ingen lingvist/*en lingvist kjφpt boken. there has no linguist/*a linguist bought a book (10) Jon har ingen böker/* en bok kjφpt. John has no book/ a book bought (Ingham 2000, 15f.) Errors: “boken” is definite form singular, ‘the book’ (cf (10)). “böker” (bøker) is indefinite plural, ‘books’.Correct in Christensen 1991, 149. sometimes very concrete even:

(70) a. Han satte katten ned på gulvet. He put the-cat down on the-ground (---) (71) a. På gulvet satte han ned katten t. On the-ground put he down the-cat (den Dikken 1995, 65) Errors: “gulvet” ‘does not mean ‘the-ground’. The correct rendering is ‘the- floor’. or more like a typing error:

(88Da) [erobringen af byen] the conquest of the city (88N) [ødeleggelsen av byen] destruction of the city (Webelhuth 1992, 76) The definite article is missing in the English rendering. Cf. the corresponding Danish sentence. -EN is the postposed definite article in both Danish and Norwegian. or both:

(15) (---) Norwegian INGEN så noe.

87 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Swedish INGEN så någonting. (Bernini and Ramat 1996, 186 The Norwegian sentence is not an equivalent of the Swedish one, as a variant “Ingen så noen ting.” is also possible.90

(19) a. Han skar kjøttet up rått [Nor.] He cuts meat-the up raw b. Han skar up kjøttet rått c. */??Han skar kjøttet rått up (---)” (Haider 1997, 11) Errors: “skar” is translated as ‘cuts’. skar is the past form of SKJÆRE/SKJERE ‘cut’, not present.

(32) a. at han skari kjøttet [ei i biter] [Nor.] that he cuts meat-the to pieces

b. at han [skar i biter]i kjøttet ei (Haider 1997, 18) Errors: “skar” is translated as ‘cuts’. skar is the past form of SKJÆRE/SKJERE ‘cut’, not present. Cf. Haider 1997, 11.

(4) B: Norwegian topicalization (Taraldsen 1981; McCreight 1988)

a. Peri hadde de trodd [ti [ti ville komme forsent]] Peter had they thought would arrive too late ‘Peter had thought they would come too late.’

b. {*jeg, *du, *vi}i hadde de trodd [ti [ti ville {*I, *you.sg.NOM, *we} had they thought would komme forsent]] arrive too late

c. {*meg, *deg, *oss}i hadde de trodd [ti [ti {*me, *you.sg.ACC, *us} had they thought ville komme forsent]] would arrive too late

d. derei hadde de trodd [ti [ti ville komme you.pl.NOM/ACC had they thought would arrive forsent]] too late ‘You had thought they would arrive too late.’ (Bejar and Massam 1999, 67) Two of the translations are wrong: a. is correct and is quoted from Taraldsen 1981, 378. This is also the case with the literal rendering in English. The English translation in single quotes, however, is wrong.

90 By the way, correct Swedish is "såg" not "så".

88 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

b. is a correct quotation of Taraldsen’s example. Not all native speakers of Norwegian have a clear opinion about all the alternatives, and this author will accept “du” as a subject, although with a certain reservation. c. on the other hand, is felt to be grammatical, “meg”, “deg”, or “oss”. These sentence alternatives do not appear in Taraldsen’s paper, but are constructed on the basis of what Taraldsen maintains (Taraldsen 1981, 379). In the case of d., what is supposed to be the English translation is wrong. “McCreight 1988” refers to Young 1988. Young 1988, 30f. quotes Taraldsen’s sentences correctly, adding no faulty translation.

Incorrect asterisks

(23) * Jeg spörte om det var [AGRP mange fuglar skote/skotne] I asked whether it was many birds shot (Hoekstra 1990, 217) “Jeg spurte om det var mange fuglar skotne” is certainly a little odd (a mixture of Bokmål and Nynorsk, “var” instead of “vart”, and the position of “skotne”). Still, the sentence(variant) is not more ungrammatical than the usual Norwegian sentence found in international grammar literature. (Cf remark to Hoekstra 1990, 217 as far as agreement and the past participle are concerned.)

It’s six of one and half a dozen of the other

It seems to be crucial that the agreement be case agreement. In Norwegian, predicate adjectives agree in number, but there is no morphological case marking. Despite the existence of number agreement on adjectives, goal objects cannot host depictive predicates. If the object is a theme, then the host of the depictive adjective can be either the subject or the object; if the object is a goal, then only the subject-host reading is available. The grammaticality judgements can be made sharper by ensuring that subject and object disagree in number. The adjective naken is singular (m/f), whereas nakne is plural.

(89) a. De så ham naken/#nakne they saw him naked b. De reddet ham nakne/naken they rescued him naked-pl./sg c. De besøkte ham nakne/*naken they visited him naked-pl./*sg d. De hjalp ham nakne/*naken they helped him naked-pl./*sg

I conclude that it is the presence of agreeing morphological case on adjectives which serves to license secondary predicates in Icelandic even when c-command does not hold. (Maling 2001, 458)

89 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

As far as Norwegian is concerned, this author has problems making any clear judgments of the listed alternatives. This is an attitude shared by all non-linguist native speakers of Norwegian asked on the subject. This may be related to the fact that the meanings of the respective sentences and their variants are rather farfetched. It is difficult to have a clear opinion about a sentence with a meaning in the borderline area of nonsense, cf. above. Additionally, this author has his doubts as to the roles attributed to REDDE and HJELPE. Since the world may look identical in a case where a person is “reddet” or “hjulpet”, the question of the semantic roles of the two verbs in question is less clear-cut than it might appear. Unless one wishes to confirm a preconceived truth.

Interference at a phrase or sentence level

(61) (---) b. Ta inte DU den boken! (Swedish) take not you that book c. Ta ikke DU den boken! (Norwegian) take not you that book (Platzack and Rosengren 1997, 218) “DU” is unacceptable in this sentence. Whether some kind of extension of the sentence, “, av alle...” ‘of all (possible persons)’. Since the authors are Swedish and accept b. as Swedish, c. is liable to be the result of interference from Swedish.

(14) a. Mannen som jeg møtte i går som The man that I met yesterday that jeg fortalte deg om er en berømt fysiker. I told you about is a famous physicist. (Maling 1978b, 722) “Mannen som” is felt to be slightly Swedish in contrast to Norwegian “Den mannen som” (with double determination).

(23) (---) b. Det er vennen, som jeg ikke vet, hva jeg skal gi til jul. ‘This is the friend, that I don’t know what I shall give for Christmas.’ (Maling 1978a, 86) “Det er vennen, som” has a definite Swedish flavour - without the demonstrative “den”. “Det er den vennen som” will be the correct Norwegian clause.

(78) a. Jag anser mig ha rätt. (Swedish) I think me have right (---) (79) a. Jeg anser meg å ha rett. (Norwegian) I think me to have right

90 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

I believe myself to be right. (Platzack 1986, 218) Odd. Probably a result of interference from Swedish. (Swedish “Jag anser mig ha rätt”.) In Norwegian, the construction ANSE SEG Å is marginally acceptable when followed by an instance of VÆRE ‘be’ in a predicative construction. Preferably, the sentence must contain a FOR, e.g. “Jeg anser meg for å være fullt kompetent til stillinga.” ‘I consider myself fully competent for the position’.

(2.19) (---) [34] e. Jag anser [ meg *(å) ha rett] I think me have right (Norwegian) (---) ‘I believe myself to be right.’ Platzack (1986, 218) (Watanabe 1996, 33f) Odd. Cf. above.

(34) Læreren sa at den smarteste studenten, altså meg/jeg, the-teacher said that the smartest student, thus me-ACC/I-NOM, skulle gi en tale. should give a speech ‘The teacher said that the smartest student, namely me, should give a speech.’ (Schütze 2001, 227) Error: “gi en tale”. Correct “holde en tale”. (English “give a speech”.)

(57) a. Da han kom tilbake ut hadde plutselig hunden forsvunnet. when he came back out had suddenly the.dog disappeared b. Da han kom tilbake ut hadde hunden plutselig forsvunnet. when he came back out had the.dog suddenly disappeared (Svenonius 2002a, 227) Error: “kom tilbake ut”. Correct “kom ut igjen”. (English “came back out”.)

Strange assertions

(i) a. *Etter dette slo Guri Per altid i sjakk. after this beat Guri Per always in chess b. Etter dette slo Guri Per ærlig talt heldigvis ikke lenger alltid i sjakk. after this beat Guri Per honestly spoken fortunately not any-longer always in chess

Although OS of full NPs across a single sentential adverb is standardly bad in Norwegian, as in (ia), sentences like (ib), where the object precedes a long string of adverbs, are markedly better. (Thráinsson 2001, 199)

91 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

The contrary is the case. (i) a. is acceptable, (i) b. not. The asterisk of (i) a. appears to be the result of a misinterpretation of Nilsen 1997 19f. (referred to by Thráinsson as “Nielsen 1997”). The acceptablility of (i) b. is controversal at least. Again, this is related to language use rather than the language as a linear system. The only possible interpretation rendering it acceptable is as a sentence containing a series of alternative adverbial phrases as some sort of correction(s) inserted in the linear sentence. It can also be seen as a contamination of two or more sentences. The fact that Thráinsson has borrowed this example from a Norwegian linguist (Nilsen 1997, 19) does not alter this situation. A normal analysis of this sentence (and argumentation based on it) equals a linear syntactic analysis of a stuttered utterance ...91

(19) Desse konstruksjonar trur eg at t er meir naturlege these constructions think I that are more natural uttrykksmåtar. expressions ‘These constructions, I think that they are more natural expressions.’ (---) (20) Det finns substantivforekomster vi ikke engang vet it exists noun occurrences we not even know [om e skall klassifiseres som mengdetermer eller ikke.] if shall classify-PASS as mass terms or not ‘There are noun occurrences that we don’t even know if they should be classified as mass terms or not.’ (---)

(22) Men deti har jeg ikke sagt noe om hvordanj ei gjøres ej. but it have I not said anything about how do-PASS ‘But that I haven’t said anything about how it is done.’ (---) Although there is some dialectal variation in Norwegian, in particular with respect to examples involving the sometimes optional complementizer at ‘that’, the range of constructions illustrated in (19)-(22) and the fact that they are not infrequent show that the subject position can be empty in modern Norwegian. (Engdahl 1985, 13) As indicated above, a theoretical conclusion based on a selection of rather odd Norwegian sentences.

Im Schwedischen und den Dialekten des Norwegischen, in denen Subjekte nicht aus Sätzen mit Konjunktionen extrahiert werden dürfen, tritt ein resumptives Pronomen in die Subjektposition ein, cf. (49) aus dem Schwedischen:

(49) vemi undrade alla om hani/*ti skulle komma i tid?

91 The problem of native language user linguists providing wrong examples, has to be addressed elsewhere, as it is loaded with severe problems for the entire foundation of linguistics.

92 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

wer fragte-sich jeder ob er würde kommen in Zeit (Fanselow 1991, 271) This is Swedish. Which is, in fact, what is stated in what seems to be Fanselow’s source for this example, Maling and Zaenen 1982, 238. One source of the confusion may be an erroneous contention in Maling and Zaenen 1982, 236. Cf. above.

Further evidence is provided by wh-movement. Norwegian has two possessive constructions, (30a) and (30b), the former with cliticized -s and the latter with sin, the usual possessive reflexive:

(30) a. Pers bil Peter’s car b. Per sin bil Peter his (refl) car ‘Peter’s car’ (Newmeyer 1998, 266) Norwegian has more than two possessive constructions. Much more important than SIN possessive is the TIL construction: “Bilen til Per”. The SIN possessive , on the other hand, is a regional phenomenon, whose centre is on the West coast. Most Norwegians never use the SIN possessive. So, there is no free choice between the a. and b. type of possessives.

Consider first the data set in (27) that illustrates the Saxon genitive construction. Notice that in Norwegian, only pronominal possessors are allowed to bear the ‘s affix:

[p 761]

(27) a. Peter’s book (English) b. bok-en hans (Norwegian, from Taraldsen, 1990) book-the his ‘his book’ c. Fyrirlestur Peturs (Icelandic, from Sigurðsson, 1993) lecture Peter’s ‘Peter’s lecture’ d. Johans bok-en (N. Swedish, from Svenonius, 1993) Johan’s book-the ‘Johan’s book’ e. Jans auto (Dutch, from Corver, 1990) ‘Jan’s car’ f. Peters Hunde (German, from Webelhuth, 1992) ‘Peter’s dogs’ (Gavruseva 2000, 760f.)

93 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Not only pronominal possessors. A Norwegian sentence “Pers bok” is perfectly grammatical. Of course, “boken hans” is spelled correctly in Taraldsen 1990, 419.

Jespersen (1960: 305), for example, [216] observes that possessive dative constructions are “extremely common in Danish, Norwegian and Swedish dialects”. Likewise, Koptjevskaja- Tamm (forthcoming) shows that Modern Norwegian does have a construction comparable to the English his-genitive, i.e. a reflexive pronoun bound to the possessor, as in:

(92) Jan og Maria si-ne barn Jan and Maria refl.poss-pl children ‘Jan and Maria’s children’

Maybe the fact that these constructions do occur in dialects or spoken language has so far been overlooked, and therefore their presence and influence on the process of turning a genitive inflection into a clitic in the Scandinavian languages has not been acknowledged yet and may well need to be rethought (---). (Rosenbach 2002, 215f.) The final remarks reveal an extraordinary lack of familiarity with Norwegian grammatical literature and her final hypothesis is correspondingly unmotivated.

In (6) there is a selection of postnominal possessive constructions found among Norwegian and NSw dialects: [101] (6) a. bilen hans car.D his “his car” b. bilen hans n Jon car.D his ART Jon ”Jon’s car” c. bilen n Jons car.D ART Jon’s ”Jon’s car” d. bilen läraren car.D teacher.D ”the teacher’s car” e. bilen åt läraren car.D to the.teacher ”the teacher’s car” (Holmberg and Sandström 1996, 100f) Only a. is a perfect Norwegian phrase. e. is also correct if the necessary alterations from Swedish orthography and morphology are made: ”bilen til læreren. The other phrases are impossible in Norwegian, even b. and c. where the Norwegian and Swedish orthography and morphology coincide.

Norwegian presents a more complex case as it may be treated as a two- or three-gender system, depending on dialectal, structural and stylistic considerations. In Norwegian Bokmål, feminine [236] gender enjoys an unstable position, which is demonstrated by the small number of nouns with obligatory feminine forms and a weak status of feminine agreement.4

94 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(Kilarski and Krynicki 2005, 235f.)

4 (---) The two insular languages, Icelandic and Faroese, together with Norwegian Nynorsk, possess the traditional Old Norse three-gender systems. The following discussion will be based however on Danish, Swedish and Norwegian Bokmål due to the comparable size of the collected data. (Kilarski and Krynicki 2005, 246n.) It is true that Norwegian Bokmål does not have a complete three-gender system such as the one of Icelandic and Faeroese, even the one of Norwegian Nynorsk. It is equally true that feminine enjoys an unstable position in Bokmål. But the number of obligatory feminine nouns in the official orthography is not a proof. What ought to be an interesting part of Bokmål and of numerous spoken dialects is the fact that, in principle, feminine is often optional, thus leaving the ground for an extensive variation - even within the speech of one single person. As for the spoken language, there are native users that never use feminine forms (traditionally only in the dialect of Bergen, but the last half of a century, this lack of active feminine may also be found elsewhere, for instance among persons adhering to particular political ideologies and, in general, belonging to certain social layers.) Still, the very same native language users will have a passive competence of feminine. This means that feminine still exists in general in all Norwegian dialects/sociolects, however in an unexpected way. I.e. different from what one should have expected comparing with other Western European languages.92

Martin Haspelmath (p.c.) points out that, in spoken Norwegian, the word og ‘and’ has [147] come to be used as an infinitival complementiser. (Lefebvre 2004, 146f.) This is an oversimplification. OG ‘and’ has not all of a sudden been used instead of the infinitival marker. The point is that the infinitival marker Å ‘to’ and OG has become homonymous, as /o/, in a number of dialects with the inevitable consequence that many native speakers find it difficult to spell the infinitival marker correctly. Which in turn has resulted in singular interpretations, however infrequent, of all instances of /o/, i.e. also the infinitival marker as OG – pronounced /og/.

The Scandinavian languages fall into two divisions with regard to the position of the infinitive marker roughly corresponding to English to: in Icelandic and Swedish it precedes S-adv, while in Danish and Norwegian it follows S-adv.

(46) a. (---) d. Han lovet (ikke å lese boken) (Norwegian) not to read the book

92 There are examples even of Norwegians excluding feminine from linguistic expositions, e.g. works as different as Lødrup 1989 and Nilson 1994. This, however, is politically motivated and, inevitably, implies that the linguistic description at hand is deficient.

95 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(Holmberg 1986, 154) The sentence “Han lovte å ikke lese boka.” is grammatical. On the other hand, it has only one reading ‘promised that not p’, while the sentence represented in d. may have the same reading (as indicated by the parentheses) and a ‘didn’t prom- ise that p’ reading. (I.e. if one disregards the parentheses.)

As a further evidence in favor of the existence of quasi-indicators we can quote the behavior of the Italian reflexive ‘proprio’ [self]. In an ascription like (the example comes from Chierchia 1989: 24): (8) a. Pavarotti crede che i propri pantaloni siano in fiamme. [Pavarotti believes self pants are on fire]

‘proprio’ forces the de se reading. If, instead of the reflexive ‘proprio’ we had the non- reflexive pronoun ‘suoi’ [his], we could have both the de re and the de se interpretation:

(8) b. Pavarotti crede che i suoi pantaloni siano in fiamme.12 [Pavarotti believes that his pants are on fire] (Corazza 2004, 348)

12 Other languages also mark this difference. In Norwegian, for instance, (8a) would translate as ‘Pavarotti tror at sine bokser brenner’ while (8b) would translate as ‘Pavarotti at haus bokser brenner’. (Corazza 2004, 348n) The way Corazza states it, there is no correspondence between Italian and Nor- wegian in this case, since the Norwegian sentence is ungrammatical: Neither the Norwegian sentence “Pavarotti tror at sine bukser brenner.” nor a variant. “Pavarotti tror at buksene sine brenner.” are grammatical, since “sine” (plural of SIN) cannot refer to the subject of the main clause, ‘Pavarotti’.93

3 The prescriptive rule in English imposing nominative case on predicate NPs (it is I in contrast to the ‘colloquial’ it’s me) evaporates for virtually all speakers as soon as one extends the data beyond this one learned example, (---). No such prescriptive rule exists for Danish and Norwegian. (Maling and Sprouse 1995, 182n) The Danes will speak for themselves. As far as Norwegian is concerned, however, Maling and Sprouse’s final contention is not correct. One example: In a recent normative grammar, both possibilities are accepted, “Det er meg.”, “Det er jeg.” However, with a preference for “jeg”, the subject form (Gundersen, Engh and Fjeld 2001, 79). Cf. also Norsk språkråd 1999, 157.

93 In fact, native Italian speakers object to (8) a. for a similar reason: The clause has no explicit subject, and the main clause should either have an impersonal subject or the “propri” should be changed for a “suoi” in order for the sentence to be grammatical. Yet, these sentences are widely quoted in linguistics literature, the last instance seems to be Huang and Liu 2001, 155. (Thanks to Maria Grazia Martens and her friends for help- ing me with the Italian examples.)

96 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Most varieties of Norwegian, including the bokmål standard, lack participle agreement. (Holmberg 2002, 101) A conditioned truth. Norwegian Nynorsk has participle agreement as have the corresponding dialects. Bokmål has a reminiscent participle agreement system. Holmberg’s contention is correct, though, if it is delimited to past participles of intransitive transitional verbs, e.g. KOMME ‘come, as in “*De er komne.” Correct “De er kommet” (conservative Bokmål/Dano-Norwegian Riksmål). Which is the context of the article at hand.

(35) Det blev tre bilder målade Construction (35) also occurs in Norwegian dialects (cf. Christensen & Taraldsen 1989: 72). (van Gelderen 1997, 191) This Swedish sentence 94 is correct. However, the corresponding Norwegian sentence will have no agreement when MALE/MÅLE is inflected according to a paradigm that contains overt plural inflexion. (There is no Norwegian sentence parallel to the Swedish one in Christensen and Taraldsen 1989, 72.)

The complex passive is productive in Danish and most varieties of Norwegian. It is disallowed in Swedish, English, Icelandic, and some varieties of Norwegian. (Holmberg 2002, 87) This is inexact as far as Norwegian is concerned. See below.

I have argued that PrtP is a phase in Swedish and English but not in Norwegian or Danish while Prt has an EPP-feature in all of them. Does this parameter have any effects other than the ones that have been discussed above, mainly the absence of the NP-Prt-passive in Danish and Norwegian 1? The following is a candidate: Norwegian 1 and Danish have so called complex passives: [119]

(67) a. Bilen ble forsøkt reparert. (Norwegian 1) b. Bilen blev forsøgt repareret. (Danish) the-car was tried repaired There was an attempt to repair the car.

(68) a. Et nytt prosjekt ble lovet iverksatt. (Norwegian 1) b. Et nyt projekt ble lovet iverksat. (Danish) a new project was promised launched They promised to launch a new project.

See Engh (1984), Hellan (1984), Christensen (1991). The counterparts of (67) and (68) in Swedish, Norwegian 2, or English are clearly ill formed.

94 Literally ‘there became three pictures paintedPLUR’, i.e. There were painted three pictures.

97 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(69) (---) b. *Bilen vart prøvd reparert. (Norwegian 2) (---) (70) (---) b. *Eit nytt prosjekt vart lova iverksatt. (Norwegian 2) (Holmberg 2002, 118f.) Holmberg (Holmberg 2002, 100f.) sketches a typology distinguishing between ‘Norwegian 1’, ‘2’, and ‘3’ based on the criteria perfect participle agreement of KOM(M)E ‘come’ and DET/DER as formal subject. Nynorsk pertains to ‘Norwegian 2’ and ‘3’. Bokmål corresponds roughly to Holmberg’s ‘Norwegian 1’. The sentences (69) b. and (70) b. are both spelled according to Nynorsk orthography. Now, contrary to what Holmberg contends, both (69) b. and (70) b. are as grammatical as (67) a. and (68) a. True, there is less tolerance for complex passive in Nynorsk than in Bokmål. Still, Nynorsk complex passives are abundant. I.e. complex passive is clearly a phenomenon of the written language, tied to certain special contexts and genres. It is also considered a construction close to an error by normative grammarians of both written standards. This has been painstakingly documented in Engh 1994.

However, alongside (57a), Swedish also has the following impersonal double object construction (the same holds true of Norwegian 2):

(59) a. Det blev tre generaler tilldelade en medalj var. EX was three generals assigned-PL a medal each b. Det blev inte många barn givna presenter den julen. Ex was not many children given-PL gifts that Christmas (Holmberg 2002, 114) The same does not hold true for Norwegian unless one strains the limits of acceptability to a radical (archaic?) degree – and forgets about the past participle agreement.

3.2 Pure existentials in Scandinavian

(---) Mainland Scandinavian has a construction involving the s-passive of the verb “find”. In Danish it combines with the locative adverbial der “there” and in Swedish and Norwegian with the 3rd person neuter d-pronoun det “this”. [96] Hopper (1998: 154) characterizes the Scandinavian s-passive as a morphological medio-passive (MP), where the reflexive pronoun sik became part of the verbal morphology. This medio-passive form is no longer productive, for regular passive formation a periphrastic passive form involving blive “become” is used. But it has survived in certain relics, including the existential construction. (Czinglar 2001, 95f) At least, only a qualified truth … True, there is a division of labour between the medio-passive form and the periphrastic passive form in modern Scandinavian. Yet, it is not the case that the “medio-passive form is no longer productive”.

98 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

In a number of languages from various language families, the morphology of the present perfect or a form historically derived from the present perfect, expresses a particular evidential category, one that indicates the availability of indirect evidence for the truth of a proposition (---).1 The phenomenon, to which I give the name PERFECT OF EVIDENTIALITY (PE), is illustrated in (1):

(1) a. Gel -miş -im. Turkish come PERF 1SG b. Az sâm došâl. Bulgarian I be-1SG, PRES come-P.PART c. Jeg har kommet. Norwegian I have-1SG, PRES come-P.PART

‘I have come.’ (PRESENT PERFECT) and/or ‘I apparently came.’ (PE)

(---) The sentences in (1b, c) are ambiguous between present perfects and perfects of evidentiality. In English, sentential modification by apparently renders quite closely the second interpretation. In both English and in the languages with the perfect of evidentiality, the indirect evidential interpretation allows both a report and an inference reading; i.e. both Apparently p and p-PE are interpreted as either It is said that p or as I infer that p2. Note that in the case of the perfect of evidentiality, the morphology of the present perfect alone brings about the evidential interpretation; there is no QUOTATION- or INFERENCE- morpheme and no embedding under verbs of saying or of inference. (Izvorski 1997, 1) As far as Norwegian is concerned, this is incorrect. Norwegian perfect does not convey ‘evidentiality’ and Izvorski’s contention “in the case of the perfect of evidentiality, the morphology of the present perfect alone brings about the evidential interpretation” etc. is simply wrong. Norwegian perfect is compatible with ‘evidentiality’ in the sense that it is possible to add an explicit marker of ‘evidentiality’ - and the result will be a grammatical sentence marked for ‘evidentiality’! However, in no case will ‘evidentiality’ be part of a consistent reading of a sentence such as (1) c. above, as its subject is a first person singular pronoun, “jeg”, and as Grice’ first maxim “Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purpose of the exchange).” is applicable to the Norwegian sentence (Grice 1967, 7). Only when the language user is clearly schizophrenic is the interpretation of any sentence with a first person singular subject possible. Izvorski’s footnote contains a general reference to Comrie 1976 and Nedjalkov 1988, probably Berkov’s chapter (Berkov 1988). The former contains no information about Norwegian. The latter contains Berkov 1988, where no clues for an evidential reading of the Norwegian perfect are given.95

95 There may be other sources, however: Johanson (2000, 64) may provide a key, when he states that "So- called perfects, expressing past events with present relevance and typically not used for narrative purposes, often tend towards readings of inferentiality or indirectivity (Comrie 1976: 108-110; (---)). This tendency is

99 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

The inspiration of Ludlow 1999 and Hyams 2002.

Yet another example is the “perfect of evidentiality” (PE) in languages such as Turkish, Bulgarian and Norwegian, discussed in Izvorski (1997) (---). (Hyams 2002, 261) Incorrect. The start of a hoax. Izvorski > Hyams

Izvorski (1997) has argued that the present perfect in many languages (ranging from Turkish to Norwegian to Bulgarian) in fact expresses what she calls the “perfect of evidentiality.” For example, the examples in (12) all express a meaning akin to “I apparently/evidently arrived.”

(12) Turkish gel -miş -im come PERF 1SG Bulgarian Az sâm došâl I be-1sg,PRES come-P.PART Norwegian Jeg har kommet I have-1SG,PRES come-P.PART

‘I have come.’ (PRESENT PERFECT) and/or ‘I apparently came.’ (PE) (Ludlow 1999, 162 The perils of borrowing arguments from a neighbouring discipline (Philosophy of time/linguistics). The start of a hoax. Izvorski > Ludlow

Ludlow suggests that there is no irreducible past tense and that what we call ‘past tense’ is an evidential, a semantic category discussed in the linguistics literature. The so-called past tense in fact serves to tell us about the kind of evidence we currently96 have for our claims. For example, one morpheme might indicate that we have first-hand evidence, another morpheme that we have second-hand evidence (e.g., testimony of others) and the like. The root evidentials indicate whether the source [387] of evidence is experience or testimony, and there are more abstract evidentials that include aspectual markers (the so-called progressive, culminative, etc., aspectual markers). Thus, the Norwegian sentence ‘Jeg har kommet’ has the English meaning ‘I apparently/evidently arrived’. (Smith 2003, 386f.)

common in various Indo-European languages, from Sanskrit down to modern languages such as Persian, Armenian, English and Scandinavian. Generally, however, the indirective semantics is unstable and elusive, suggested by categories that have rather different central meanings. Thus, the indirective capacities of Scan- dinavian perfects are far more modest than sometimes stated in the literature (e.g. Haugen 1972)." 96 Also observe “Gel -mis –im” instead of “Gel -miş –im”.

100 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

The perils of borrowing arguments from a neighbouring discipline (Philosophy of time/linguistics). The continuation of a hoax. Izvorski > Ludlow > Smith

It may seem odd that an element of the temporal/aspectual lexicon, the perfect, should have a modal aspect to its meaning. It turns out, however, that it is not uncommon for present perfects to have a kind of epistemic modal interpretation (Izvorski 1997). Examples are given in (25).

(25) a. Gel -mis -im. Turkish b. Az sâm došâl. Bulgarian [7] c. Jeg har kommet. Norwegian “I have come” OR “I apparently came” (Katz 2003, 6f.) Incorrect. Cf. Izvorski 1997 above.

Izvorski (1997) observes that the present perfect in Turkish, Bulgarian and Norwegian expresses the evidential category of indirect evidence. She terms this phenomenon the perfect of evidentiality (PE).

(66) a. Gel -miş -im. (Turkish) come PERF 1SG b. Azsâm došâl. (Bulgarian) I be-1SG.PRES come-P.PART c. Jeg har kommet (Norwegian) I have-1SG.PRES come-P.PART ‘I have come/I apparently came’ (Rooryck 2001, 166) Incorrect. Cf. Izvorski 1997 above.97

Inexact observations on Norwegian are not limited to syntax and semantics. In the introduction to their three volume work Gender across languages, Hellinger and Buss- mann, for instance, mention a Turkish proverb, which they render as ‘Let the one who bears a son be proud, let the one who bears a daughter beat herself.’ continuing: “This is the mes- sage of numerous idiomatic expressions and proverbs from many languages of “Gender across languages”: Arabic, Chinese, Danish, Finnish, Italian, Norwegian, Russian, and Turkish.” (Hellinger and Bussmann 2001, 17.) As far as Norwegian is concerned, this is nonsense. No expert of Norwegian folklore (Reimund Kvideland, Brynjulf Alver, and Ann Helen Bolstad Skjelbred) nor linguistics (e.g. Tove Bull and Toril Swan, the Norwegian contributors to Hellinger and Bussmann’s work), has ever heard about anything remotely similar. Of a less controversial nature are the numerous uncritical references to code-switching in Hemnesberget, following Blom and Gumperz’ article from 1972 (Blom and Gumperz

97 Bulgarian error: ” Azsâm”. Correct: “Az sâm”.

101 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

1972), e.g. Heller (1988, 6), Romaine (1994, 60f.), and Hudson (1996, 53) to mention a few, and Thiam (1997, 34), Swann (2000, 164), Milroy and Gordon (2003, 198), and Coul- mas (2005, 110) to mention titles more recent than Mæhlum 1996. In the Norwegian linguistics’ community, the latter is generally considered to represent the final words about the linguistic facts from Hemnesberget and their (mis)interpretation. A sign of general confusion is found in

Type (5), the s-genitive, is found in English, Swedish, Danish and some other varieties of Norwegian. (Norde 1998, 214) “some other varieties of Norwegian”? Is Danish a variety of Norwegian? And what about Swedish and English?. If ‘and in some varieties of Norwegian’ is what the grammarian meant this is a conditioned truth: The Nynorsk written standard norm is negative, while s-genitive still is part of the reportoir of many Nynorsk users. With few exceptions, s-genitive can be found in all spoken dialects.

Finally, it is symptomatic that Nicol in his article on verb-particle constructions (Nicol 2002) includes a paragraph “Contrasts between English and the Scandinavian languages” where only examples from Swedish are analysed. Nothing is said about the complexity of this phenomenon in Scandinavian.

Spurious references

Informants

(13) a. Per sin bil Per his car ‘Per’s car’ b. kvarandre sin bil each-other his car ‘each other’s car’ (Haegeman 2004, 705)

6 Thanks to Anna Britta Stenström for the judgment on Norwegian. (Haegeman 2004, 705n) The author is ill informed, cf. above. The reason is, apparently, that the author has relied on information provided by a Swedish professor of English living in

102 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Norway. There exists an extensive literature on the subject that should have been consulted. Cf. Rosenbach 2002, 215f. below.

Martin Haspelmath (p.c.) points out that, in spoken Norwegian, the word og ‘and’ has [147] come to be used as an infinitival complementiser. (Lefebvre 2004, 146f.) Martin Haspelmath is hardly the optimal source/documentation of another much discussed phenomenon of Norwegian grammar.

14 Space prevents a full discussion of this phenomenon here, but I note that it is also found in some of the Scandinavian languages (thanks to P. Svenonius for the Norwegian and L. Mikkelsen for the Danish): (i) Per har gått på kino, men jeg vet ikke hvem med [Norwegian] Per er gået i biografen, men jeg ved ikke hvem med. [Danish] Per has/is gone to cinema but I know not who with ‘Per went to the movies but I don’t know who with.’ (Merchant 2001, 64n) Svenonius is not a native speaker of Norwegian - and an important contributor to the current inventory.

As pointed out in Sung (1990), the Mainland Scandinavian languages exhibit agreement in predicate adjective constructions:18 [xxxvii] (46) Predicate Adjective Agreement a. Gutten er stor. the boy is big ‘The boy is big.’ b. Huset er stort. the house is big ‘The house is big.’ c. Husene/Guttene er store. ‘The houses/boys are big.’ (Cole, Hermon, and Huang 2001, xxxvi-xxxvii)

“18Example (77), from Norwegian, was provided to Li-May Sung by Arild Hestvik (personal communication). (Cole, Hermon, and Huang 2001, xliv) These examples are correct. The somewhat alarming part of this piece of documentation, however, is the strange detour made by the authors in order to state a very simple, basic, and well documented fact about Norwegian: A reference to Sung (1990), who reportedly was informed about the phenomenon by a linguist native speaker.98 It has been impossible to get access to a copy of Sung 1990. (I

98 Which takes one back to one of the classic jokes of generative semantics: "??? informs me that German has three genders."

103 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

take it “Example (77)” does indeed refer to (46), given its position in the text and the fact that the paper does not contain any example (77).)

Bibliographical references

Correct references

(---) as shown in the Norwegian examples (22) and (23) based on Giusti (1994:252-3):

(22) [DP mitt [D e] [AgrP store [Agr e][NP hus]]] my big house “my big house”

(23) [DP [D det] [AgrP store [Agr huseti] [NP mitt [N ti]]]] the big house-THE my “my big house” (Willim 1999, 192) Giusti (1994, 252f.) is hardly the best reference in order to document a simple, basic, and otherwise well documented fact about Norwegian, disregarding the formalities of notation.

However, there is frequently a snag of one sort or the other:

(---) I want to point out that incorporation structures are attested in Northern dialects of Norwegian and Swedish, as pointed out in Delsing (1993: 91) and Sandström & Holmberg (1994), from which the following examples have been taken, respectively.

(88) stor-en NO.SW. big-the ‘the big one’ (89) nybiln NO.SW new-car-the ‘the new car’ (Kester 1996, 154) “NO.SW.” means ‘Northern Swedish’. On the other hand, Kester clearly states that the phenomenon in question is found in Norwegian as well, one implication being that both (88) and (89) correspond to rather similar Norwegian words. Taking a closer look, her interpretation of Delsing is distorted: “(---) most Nor- wegian and Swedish dialects have independently used adjectives with the definite suffix, exactly as in (59) [which corresponds to Kester’s (88).].” (Delsing 1993, 91.) Which does not mean that a Norwegian word “storen” is what Delsing has in mind. Still, this footnote phenomenon of Norwegian is described in traditional Norwe- gian dialectology literature, e.g. Beito 1986, 223. As far as the regional distribution is concerned, Kester’s statement is a conditioned truth and so is Delsing’s contention. The only dialect area where this

104 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

construction has any general use is the one of Trøndelag, i.e. of central Norway. Elsewhere, it is limited to certain niches, e.g. names of inhabitants and horses.

(92) Jan og Maria si-ne barn Jan and Maria refl.poss-pl children ‘Jan and Maria’s children’

Maybe the fact that these constructions do occur in dialects or spoken language has so far been overlooked, and therefore their presence and influence on the process of turning a genitive inflection into a clitic in the Scandinavian languages has not been acknowledged yet and may well need to be rethought (---). (Rosenbach 2002, 215f.) Especially the reference to Koptjevskaja-Tamm is utterly strange, since the construction in question is a well documented and, in fact, much discussed topic in Norwegian linguistics literature. The final remarks display a remarkable lack of familiarity with the literature on Norwegian grammar - and a correspondingly misguided hypothesis.

(---) as shown by (181) for Norwegian (---) (Holmberg and Platzack 1995: 217-218):

(181) a. Jon ble gitt en bok John was given a book ‘John was given a book’ b. En bok ble gitt Jon A book was given John ?* ‘A book was given John’ (Anagnostopoulou 2003, 124) The examples are correct but peculiar (a content relating to everyday life expressed in officialese). One Finnish and one Swedish linguist are mentioned as informants.99 The same example can also be found in Müller 1995b, 243. His source appears to be Larson 1988. However, (181) a. and b. are almost identical to (8) a. and b. of Hellan 1988b, 10.100

Bokmål Norwegian: Jeg så ham ikke ‘I haven’t seen him’; Det er folk som ikke vil arbeide ‘There are people who do not want to work’ (see Sommerfelt-Marm 1981:53ff.). (Ramat 1987, 173)

99 Norwegian linguists may be the origin of similar sentences, though. E.g. Åfarli (1992). 100 Which, in fact, contains a reference to Larson 1988.

105 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

The second sentence is somewhat weird. “fins”/”finnes” would be better than “er”. (In fact, this seems to be what Sommerfelt and Marm communicate, at least in the 1967 impression of the book, which is the closest copy this author has managed to get hold of: “Det er (fins) folk som ikke vil arbeide. There are people who will not work.” (Marm and Sommerfelt 1967, 55)

Ramat refers to a correct Norwegian sentence. In order to demonstrate the trustworthiness of this correct sentence, however, the author refers to Sommerfelt-Marm 1981. Now, this is the inexact reference in the first place, as we are talking about two individuals. “Sommerfelt-Marm” should be spelled out as ‘Sommerfelt and Marm’.101 In the second place, it is a reference to a reprint of the otherwise more or less correct normative grammar of the Teach yourself series: Marm and Sommerfelt 1943. Hardly an appropriate source in a scientific context.102 Ramat is not the only linguist using Marm and Sommerfelt to document Norwegian, however. E.g. Harris and Campbell (Harris and Campbell 1995, 206f.) who refer to Marm and Sommerfelt 1967.

(---) the more or less colloquial varieties of Norwegian as well (“[...] the expression: ikke noen, [...] often replaces ingen, especially in colloquial speech”, Marm-Sommerfelt (1981: 131)). (Bernini and Ramat 1996, 233n) This is only a qualified truth. It probably even was a qualified truth more than 60 years ago, when Marm and Sommerfelt was first published (in exile). Cf. above.

Norwegian (Haga 1976). Norwegian, an SVO language, has a minor movement rule Haga names Light-Pronoun Shift. (---)

(116) Winston utbedret visst skaden ved dugnad Winston repaired “I think” the damage through volunteer work Winston repaired the damage through volunteer work (117) Winston utbedret den visst ved dugnad Winston repaired it I think through volunteer work. Winston repaired it I think through volunteer work. (Tomlin 1986, 65) In this case, a common feature of Norwegian syntax – and indeed of every descriptive syntax of Norwegian – is “documented” by means of a reference to a peripheral American paper: Haga 1976. As for an additional idiomatic anomaly, cf. above.

101 Wrong sequence, see below. 102 Despite the fact that Sommerfelt, in particular, was a linguist of high esteem.. The book at hand is a popular handbook, first conceived during the World War, probably for world war use. Also, the kind of Norwegian reflected in it seems fairly antiquated to modern language users, an impression that persist even in its newer versions.

106 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

11 Unless noted otherwise, the data and generalizations in this section and the next are taken from (---); Dalrymple (1993) (Marathi, Norwegian); (---). (Büring 2005, 59n) Not a particularly reliable source, given the quality of the Norwegian data, cf. Dalrymple 1993, 28/30/164f./165 etc.103

Falk (Falk 2001, 183) also refers to Dalrymple 1993. No example is given. Finally, Müller (Müller 1995a, 204 and Müller 1995b, 234) refers to Larson (Larson 1988, 356) as his source for Norwegian:

Similarly, IOs which have first undergone dative movement may then undergo A-bar movement in Danish (---), or in Norwegian (cf. Larson (1988: 356), (---). (Müller 1995a, 204)

Also, A-bar movement of shifted IOs is permitted in Norwegian (Larson (1988:356)): (Müller 1995b, 234)

Cf. one odd sentence and its accompanying translation from Larson (Larson 1988, 356) reproduced above. Linguistic and editorial sloppiness walks hand in hand when Müller (1995b, 337) writes:

Similar restrictions on embedded topicalization hold in most Germanic languages, such as Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian (cf., e.g., Platzack (1986), den Besten (1989) and Vikner (1990)). (Müller 1995b, 337) It is debatable whether these linguists have the proper insight to make them the natural sources for assertions on Norwegian. Vikner (1990) is, by the way, an unpublished doctoral thesis, not available at any Norwegian library. Vikner 1995 is based on Vikner 1990.

The same seems to hold in the more restrictive variant of Norwegian which normally prohibits A-movement of the DO in dative movement constructions (cf. Hestvik (1986), Fanselow (1991)): (Müller 1995b, 417n) Fanselow 1991 is hardly a primary source.

(---) there are Norwegian dialects which also use logophoric reflexives, though lacking a distinction between indicative and subjunctive mood in the verbal morphology (Aass 1979 (cited by Maling 1984), Moshagen and Trosterud 1990). (Bresnan 2000, 264n) In this case, one master’s thesis (Aass 1979) is referred to as a matter of form, since its content is only known to the author via Maling 1984. This is a perfectly

103 What about the Marathi examples?

107 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

honest way to declare one’s sources - although a far from perfect editorial practice.

On the other hand, Tanaka’s reference to Jonas 1996 as his source for Norwegian data (Tanaka 2000, 474) is justifiable, as Tanaka primarily intends to give an overview of recent research in the area. Less justifiable is Rizzi’s reference to Engdahl 1985:

4. The necessity of a complete dissociation between subject and adjunct extraction is clearly indicated by the asymmetric behavior of extraction from a wh island in Norwegian, as was pointed out by Elisabet Engdahl. (Rizzi 1990, 125) given that Engdahl is widely represented in the present inventory.

Erroneous references

(---); but in subordinate clauses: vi ar redd for at bussen ikke kommer “we fear the bus will not come”, (---). (Ramat 1987, 183) A correct sentence per se (disregarding the spelling error). The informant is a native speaker of Swedish, Östen Dahl (Dahl 1979, 95).104

(8 c) Norwegian:

Bordeti tok han en bok fra table-the take.Past he a book from

hylla og [la på ti]. shelf-the and put.Past on ‘The table, he took a book from the shelf and put (it) on’ (Déchaine 1993, 801) Of Déchaine’s alleged sources (cf. above), the only one that this author has not been able to search is den Dikken 1991. Hardly credible as a first-hand source for Norwegian anyway.

(---) (cf Corver 1990 for details).

(8) b. Hvemi er det [ti sin tante]? who is it his aunt ‘Whose aunt is it?’

c. Hvemi er det [ti sin bil]? who is it his car ‘Whose car is this?’

d. Hvemi er han [ti sin bror]?

104 Provided that Ramat’s reference is correct. Cf. comment in above note.

108 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

who is he his brother ‘Whose brother is he?’ (---) Corver (1990: 185) furthermore signals the contrast in (8g, h). (---)

(8) g. [Hvem sin tante]i er det [ti sin katt]? who his aunt is that his cat ‘Whose aunt’s cat is that?’ (---) (Haegeman 2003, 225) The two first sentences, (8) b. and c. are more or less acceptable. (Definitely not acceptable according to the rules of any normative grammar, however.) d. is simply ungrammatical, while g. is slightly unacceptable - and does indeed sound like a joke. Corver 1990 is mentioned as source. This is peculiar since it is impossible to get hold of Corver’s thesis.105 However, at least two of the examples mentioned above, originate from a Norwegian source: (90) hvem er det sin tante? (Taraldsen 1978a, 231) (95) hvem sin tante er det sin katt? (Taraldsen 1978a, 232) The origin of (8) b. and g. respectively. It remains obscure what can be the origin of (8) c. and d. In the case of (8) c. this is immaterial, since it can be seen as a direct projection of (8) b., the only difference being a different noun, “bil”, of a different gender. In the case of (8) d., however, the question of origin is all the more interesting.106

(---) Mainland Scandinavian has a construction involving the s-passive of the verb “find”. In Danish it combines with the locative adverbial der “there” and in Swedish and Norwegian with the 3rd person neuter d-pronoun det “this”. [96] Hopper (1998: 154) characterizes the Scandinavian s-passive as a morphological medio-passive (MP), where the reflexive pronoun sik became part of the verbal morphology. This medio-passive form is no longer productive, for regular passive formation a periphrastic passive form involving blive “become” is used. But it has survived in certain relics, including the existential construction. (Czinglar 2001, 95f) Hopper 1998 is hardly the authoritative source for this central topic of Norwegian grammar.

The paragraph contains an erroneous assertion, cf. above. As for the validity of Hopper 1998:

(---) the Danish (and general Scandinavian) s-passive. Its origins were in a pre-Norse amalgamation of the reflexive pronoun sik with a verb, from where it went to the

105 A strange fact in itself, given Haegeman’s strict attitude towards internationally published references in other contexts. Cf. Haegeman 1994, 80. 106 The topic of strange sentences of Norwegian origin will be dealt with elsewhere.

109 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

paradigmatization (Lehmann, 1985) of sik at the expense of the other pronouns, to its grammaticalization as a morphological medio-passive, and finally its replacement by a periphrastic passive with blive (=“become”, werden). (Hopper 1998, 154) Again, “replacement” is clearly an inexact description. Especially as it is contra- dicted by Hopper’s further descriptive analysis.107

The present account of the Norwegian binding system is based on Hellan (1980, 1988), Bresnan et al. (1983), and Dalrymple (1993). This account is somewhat “idealized” (Lødrup 1999a), by abstracting away from other factors that influence reflexive binding in Norwegian, such as thematic prominence (Hellan 1988, Dalrymple and Zaenen 1991, Dalrymple 1993). (Bresnan 2000, 264n) Despite their competence as theoretical linguists, neither Bresnan, Dalrymple, nor Zaenen can be considered appropriate sources as far as Norwegian is concerned. Additionally, Dalrymple and Zaenen 1991 is a relatively peripherical source in itself.108

Finally, the bibliographical reference is technically wrong in the following series of cases:

Lundeby, Einar (1965) Overbestemt substantiv i norsk og de andre nordiske sprog. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo. (Holmberg and Platzack 2005, 456) “sprog” is incorrect.109 The correct reference is

Lundeby, Einar: 1965, Overbestemt substantiv i norsk og de andre nordiske språk. (Scandinavian University Books) Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget

The appearence of “sprog” seems to indicate that the authors never saw the exhibit ... In Delsing’s case, however, “sprog” and not “språk” seems to be some sort of hypercorrection (i.e. in opposition to Swedish “språk”).

Lundeby, E: 1965. Overbestemt substantiv i norsk og de andre nordiske sprog .Trondheim. (Delsing 1993, 235) Incorrect: “sprog” and “Trondheim”. Correct: “språk” and “Oslo”!

Delsing (1988), quoting Lundeby (1965), reports a whole series of languages different both from the typological and the genetic point of view, (---). (Giusti 1995, 84)

107 Lehmann 1985 is referred to for theoretical reasons. It contains no information about the Scandinavian medio-passive. 108 To the extent that it for instance has been unavailable for the present author. 109 Ironically, "sprog" is Danish and old-fashioned Dano-Norwegian, "Riksmål" (opposed by Lundeby), and substituted by "språk" in the 1938 reform of Bokmål.

110 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

In a way, Giusti’s reference to Lundeby (via Delsing 1988) is better than just mentioning Delsing (1988). (Lundeby’s work is a cornerstone of Norwegian grammar in this area.) Yet, the bibliographical reference provided by Giusti shows that Lundeby’s monograph has not been consulted:

Lundeby, Einar: 1965, Overbestemt substantiv i norsk og de andre nordiske sprog, unpubl. diss., Trondheim. (Giusti 1995, 93) Incorrect: “sprog”, “unpubl. diss.”, and “Trondheim”. Correct: “språk”, 110 “(Scandinavian University Books), Universitetsforlaget”111 and “Oslo”.

Inheritance

How did all the errors reported above come into being? In general, the deficient examples seem to be of the linguists’ own invention. In some cases, however, the sources are mentioned. There are several kinds of sources. One is the general reference to informants: Native speakers of Norwegian are identified in an initial footnote of acknowledgement as the general source or members of a test panel.112 Nothing is mentioned about the circumstances of the elicitation or test process itself, and it is not known whether the persons mentioned actually have recognised the examples as represented. In other cases, though, sources for particular deficient examples are explicitely given, both personal sources and published information. They will all be listed below. For the cause of simplicity, everything not 100% correct is counted as a deficiency in the following overview, including erroneous and spurious references, wrong interpretations as well as oddities and straightforward errors of any kind, wrong characters and obvious typos. Not taken into consideration are incorrect or void references as well as imprecise references such as:

11 Unless noted otherwise, the data and generalizations in this section and the next are taken from (---); Dalrymple (1993) (Marathi, Norwegian); (---). (Büring 2005, 59n)

From published information, written by other foreigners quoter quoted origin of the error

Auer 2005, 17 Widmark 2005

110 What is extraordinary, is that in Delsing 1988, the correct form ”språk” is used. 111 The most important academic publisher in Norway in 1965. 112 E.g. Maling and Zaenen (1982) extending thanks to Per Kristian Halvorsen, Lars Hellan, and Svein Lie. Cf. below.

111 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Czinglar 2001, 95f Hopper 1998, 154 Déchaine 1993, 801113 den Dikken 1991? Engels 2004, 275 Svenonius 2002a, 223114 Fanselow 1991, 223 (1) Maling and Zaenen 1982, 231 Fanselow 1991, 223 (2) Maling and Zaenen 1982, 231 Fanselow 1991, 270 Maling and Zaenen 1982, 235 Fanselow 1991, 271 Maling and Zaenen 1982, 238 Fanselow 1991, 326n Maling and Zaenen 1982, 238 Fanselow 1991, 338n (1) Engdahl 1988a, 81 Fanselow 1991, 338n (2) Engdahl 1988a, 81 Fanselow 1991, 338n (3) Engdahl 1988a, 81 Haegeman 2003, 225 Corver 1990, 185 Haegeman 2004, 705 Delsing 1998 Haider 1993, 643 (1) Engdahl 1988b, 15 Haider 1993, 643 (2) Engdahl 1988b, 19 Heine and Kuteva 2002, 104 Koptjevskaja-Tamm [2003, 660] Kester 1996, 154 Delsing 1993, 91 Lobeck 1995, 60 Rizzi 1990, 57 Mallen 1997, 71 (1) Svenonius 1993, 207/212f Mallen 1997, 71 (2) Svenonius 1993, 207/212f Merchant 2001, 68 Lobeck 1995, 60 Müller 1995b, 243 Larson 1988, 356n Müller 1995b, 337 Vikner 1990 Müller 1995b, 417n Fanselow 1991 Rosenbach 2002, 215f (1) Jespersen [1960] Rosenbach 2002, 215f (2) Koptjevskaja-Tamm “forthcoming” Safir 1999, 588 Giorgi and Longobardi 1991, 201 Watanabe 1996, 33f Platzack 1986, 218 Willim 1999, 192 Giusti 1994, 252f Zeller 2001, 285 Svenonius 1996a, 11 Zeller 2002, 234 Svenonius 1996a, 11

Origin of the error

Bobaljik 2002, 236 Svenonius 1994, 3/8 Borsley 1993, 578 “Maling and Zaenen 1981”. Probably Maling and Zaenen 1982, 241 Cheng and Sybesma 1999, 539 Bernstein 1997, 90n Czinglar 2001, 95f Hopper 1998, 154 Engels 2004, 146n Svenonius 2002a, 232 Ernst 2002, 434 Svenonius 2002a, 221 Fanselow 1991, 270 Maling and Zaenen 1982, 235

113 Probably Déchaine’s error. 114 No source given, but the example clearly has Svenonius 2002, 223 as its origin.

112 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Fanselow 1991, 333n (1) Maling and Zaenen 1982, 249 Fanselow 1991, 333n (2) Maling and Zaenen 1982, 249 Fanselow 1991, 338n Engdahl 1988a, 81 Fanselow 1991, 326n Maling and Zaenen 1982, 236 Haider 2005, 35 Holmberg and Platzack 1995, 172 Holmberg and Platzack 2005, 427 Svenonius 1996 Hyams 2002, 261 Izvorski 1997 Katz 2003, 6f Izvorski 1997 Kester 1996, 146n Svenonius 1993, 208n König and Haspelmath 1998, 576 Vergnaud and Zubizarreta 1992, 622n115 Lidz 1996, 122 Reinhart and Reuland 1993, 666 Ludlow 1999, 162 Izvorski 1997 Müller 1995b, 234 Larson 1998, 356 Rooryck 2001, 166 Izvorski 1997 Safir 2004, 135 Lidz 1996, 118 Smith 2003, 386f Ludlow 1999 Smith 2004, 585 Reinhart and Reuland 1993, 666 Toivonen 2003, 20 Svenonius 1994, 3/8 Tomlin 1986, 65 Haga 1976116 Ura 2000, 236 Holmberg and Platzack 1995, 172 Vikner 1995, 60 Engdahl “1984, 12”. I.e. 1985, 13 Watanabe 1996, 33f Platzack 1986, 218 Zeller 2001, 288f Svenonius 1996, 20 and 22

Uncertain origin of error

Rizzi 1990, 125 Engdahl (unknown title)

As for the references to linguistics literature, most of them are to the works of other foreign linguists. They are, in general, linguists of a theoretical rather than descriptive orientation.

From “personal communication” with other foreign linguists quoter quoted origin of the error

Cole, Hermon, and Huang 2001, xliv Li-May Sung Haegeman 2004, 705 Anna Britta Stenström Lefebvre 2004, 146f Martin Haspelmath Merchant 2000,1 Peter Svenonius

115 There is a slight possibility that the error has Lars Johnsen (personal communication) as its origin. 116 It has not been possible to verify the identity of this linguist. Thus, despite the Norwegian name, (s)he is liable to be an American.

113 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Toyoshima 2001, 123f Anders Holmberg

origin of the error

Lefebvre 2004, 146f Martin Haspelmath Merchant 2000,1 Peter Svenonius Merchant 2001, 64n Peter Svenonius Merchant 2002, 296 Peter Svenonius

In such cases, however, it is difficult, if not impossible, to detect the precise point where the error originated.

From published information written by Norwegians

There are also various references to the works of Norwegian linguists, which in the present context implies that the quoter is the origin of the error or at least shows a certain lack of judgement in the choice of source, e.g. Bernini and Ramat 1996. quoter quoted origin of the error

Bejar and Massam 1999, 67 Taraldsen 1981, 378 Bergeton 2004, 254 Lødrup 1999, 367 Bergeton 2004, 300 Faarlund et al 1997, Bernini and Ramat 1996, 233n Marm and Sommerfelt 1943 [1981] Bhatt 2002, 82 Åfarli 1994, 89 Bobaljik and Thráinsson 1998, 55 Vangsnes 1995, 91 Dalrymple 1993, 165 Hellan 1988a, 217 Déchaine and Manfredi 1994, 245) Hellan 1988, 104 Den Dikken and Næss 1993, 327 Askedal 1986, 31 Gavruseva 2000, 761 Taraldsen 1990, 419 Haider 1997, 18n Åfarli 1985, 89 Haider 2000, 46 Taraldsen 1979 Harris and Campbell 1995, 206f Marm and Sommerfelt 1943 [1967] Hoekstra 1990, 213 Askedal 1986 ? Hoekstra and Mulder 1990, 49 Askedal 1986, 31 Huang 2000, 20 Hellan 1988a, 104 Huang 2000, 20 Hellan 1991, 33 Ingham 2000, 15 Christensen 1991, 149 Jonas 1996, 105 Christensen and Taraldsen 1981, 72 Lazard 2001/1994, 236 Faarlund upubl. Lidz 1996, 135 (1) Hellan 1988a, 113f Lidz 1996, 135 (2) Hellan 1988a, 113f

114 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Lidz 1996, 137 (1) Hellan 1988a, 113f Lidz 1996, 137 (2) Hellan 1988a, 231 Müller 1995b, 243 Christensen 1982 Newmeyer 1998, 267 Fiva 1984, 41 Ogawa 2001, 87 (1) Taraldsen 1978b, 633f Ogawa 2001, 87 (2) Taraldsen 1978b, 634 Platzack 2002, 80 Faarlund et al 1997, 1056 Ramat 1987, 173 Marm and Sommerfelt 1943 [1981] Reinhart and Reuland 1993, 666 Hellan 1988a, 108 Roberts 1993, 265 Trosterud 1989 Sabel 1996, 85n Christensen and Taraldsen 1989, 72f Thráinsson 2001, 199 Nilsen 2000 (“1997”) Van Gelderen 1997, 191 Christensen and Taraldsen 1989, 72

From “personal communication” with Norwegian linguists

Norwegian linguists expressely mentioned as oral sources - “personal communication”:117 quoter quoted origin of the error

Bernstein 1997, 90 Øystein Vangsnes Cardinaletti 1997, 525 Knut Tarald Taraldsen Cormack 1999, 60 Tor Åfarli Craenenbroeck 2004, 113 Øystein Nilsen Koopman 1999, 119 Arild Hestvik Koopman and Szabolcsi 2000, 230n Øystein Nilsen Larson 1988, 356 Arild Hestvik Maling and Zaenen 1982, 249 Knut Tarald Taraldsen Richards 1997, 183 Arild Hestvik Richards 2001, 77 Øystein Vangsnes Safir 2004, 132 Arild Hestvik Li-May Sung Arild Hestvik Svenonius 1993, 208n Arild Hestvik

The majority of the Norwegian linguists quoted (both written sources and personal communication) must be classified as theoretical (Christensen, Fiva, Hellan, Hestvik, Johnsen, Lødrup, Nilsen, Sommerfelt, Taraldsen, Trosterud, Vangsnes, and Åfarli). Only Askedal, Faarlund, and Marm can, with a certain reservation, be considered descriptive linguists.

117 As already mentioned, those ritually thanked in footnotes of acknowledgement have not been included in this list.

115 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

“Transitive” inheritance

In quite a few cases, it is possible to trace how deficient linguistic data are passed from one linguist to another. In most of them, the ultimate source is a Norwegian linguist:

Quoter quoted/quoter quoted origin of the error

Cole, Hermon and Huang 2001, xliv Li-May Sung PC Hestvik PC Müller 1995b, 243 Larson 1988, 356 Hestvik PC Safir 1999, 588 Giorgi and Longobardi 1991, 201 Taraldsen “talk” origin of the error (1) origin of the error (2)

Merchant 2001, 68 Lobeck 1995 Rizzi 1990,57

origin of the error

Kester 1996, 146n Svenonius 1993, 208n Hestvik PC Lidz 1996, 122 Reinhart and Reuland 1993, 666 Hellan 1988a, 108 Smith 2004, 585 Reinhart and Reuland 1993, 666 Hellan 1988a, 108 Cheng and Sybesma 1999, 539 Bernstein 1997, 90 Vangsnes PC Fanselow 1991, 333n Maling and Zaenen 1982, 249 Taraldsen PC

origin of the error

Smith 2003, 386f Ludlow 1999 Izvorski 1997, 1

116 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

References (reviewed titles with defects)

Ackema, Peter and Ad Neeleman: 2002, “Syntactic atomicity”. Journal of comparative Germanic linguistics. 6, 93-128 Ackema, Peter and Ad Neeleman: 2004, Beyond morphology. Interface conditions on word formation. (Oxford studies in theoretical linguistics 6) Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press Alexiadou, Artemis and Gisbert Fanselow: 2002, “On the correlation between morphology and syntax”. In Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter and Werner Abraham (eds.): 2002, Studies in comparative Germanic syntax. Proceedings from the 15th workshop on comparative Germanic syntax. (Linguistik Aktuell 53) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins 219-242 Anagnostopoulou, Elena: 2003, The syntax of ditransitives. Evidence from clitics. (Studies in generative grammar 54) Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter Auer, Peter: 2005, “Europe’s sociolinguistic unity, or: A typology of European dialect/standard constellations”. In Delbecque, Nicole, Johan van der Auwera, and Dirk Geeraerts (eds.): 2005, Perspectives on variation. Sociolinguistic, historical, comparative. (Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs 163) Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter 7-42 Avram, Larisa: 1987, “The Romanian prezent and the Norwegian presens. A semantic description”. Revue roumaine de linguistique. Numéro spécial publié à l’occasion du XIVe congrès international des linguistes. Berlin, du 10 au 15 Août 1987. 32/3, 207- 212 Bejar, Susana and Diane Massam: 1999, “Multiple case checking”. Syntax 2/2, 65-79 Bergeton, Uffe: 2004, The independence of binding and intensification I. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Southern California. [Quotations from http://www-scf.usc.edu/~bergeton/dissertation.htm. (21 December 2005)] Bernini, Giuliano and Paolo Ramat: 1996, Negative sentences in the languages of Europe. (Empirical approaches to language typology 16) Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter Bernstein, Judy B.: 1997, “Demonstratives and reinforcers in Romance and Germanic languages”. Lingua 102, 87-113 Bhatt, Rajesh: 2002, “The raising analysis of relative clauses: Evidence from adjectival modification”. Natural language semantics 10, 43-90 Bobaljik, Jonathan David: 2002, “A-chains at the PF-interface: Copies and ‘covert’ movement”. Natural language and linguistic theory 20, 197-267 Bobaljik, Jonathan David and Höskuldur Thráinsson [Þráinsson]: 1998, “Two heads aren’t always better than one”. Syntax 11/1, 37-71

117 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Borsley, Robert D.: 1993, “Syntax in generative grammar”. In Jacobs, Joachim, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld, and Theo Vennemann (eds.): Syntax. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung. (Handbücher der Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 9.1/1) Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter 570-581 Brandner, Ellen: 1993, “The projection of categories and the nature of agreement”. In Fanselow, Gisbert (ed): 1993, The parametrization of universal grammar. (Linguistik Aktuell 8) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins 73-121 Bresnan, Joan: 2000, Lexical-functional syntax. (Blackwell textbooks in linguistics 16) Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Brugè, Laura: 2002, “The positions of demonstratives in the extended nominal projection”. In Cinque, Guglielmo (ed.): 2002, Functional structure in DP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures, volume 1. (Oxford studies in comparative syntax) Oxford, UK: Oxford Univesity Press 15-53 Büring, Daniel: 2005, Binding theory. (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Cardinaletti, Anna: 1997, “Agreement and control in expletive constructions”. Linguistic inquiry 28/3, 521-533 Carlson, Greg N.: 1983, “Marking constituents”. In Heny, Frank and Barry Richards (eds.): 1983, Linguistic categories: Auxiliaries and related puzzles. I Categories. (Synthese language library 19) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel 69-98 Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen and Rint Sybesma: 1999, “Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP”. Linguistic inquiry 30/4, 509-542 Cinque, Guglielmo: 1999, Adverbs and functional heads. A cross-linguistic perspective. (Oxford studies in comparative syntax) Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press Cole, Peter, Gabriella Hermon, and C.-T. James Huang: 2001, “Introduction. Long-distance reflexives: The state of the art”. In Cole, Peter, Gabriella Hermon, and C.-T. James Huang (eds.): 2001, Long-distance reflexives. (Syntax and semantics 33) New York, NY: Academic Press xiii-xlv Coulmas, Florian: 2005, Sociolinguistics. The study of speaker’s choices. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge university press Corazza, Eros: 2004, “Essential indexical and quasi-indicators”. Journal of semantics 21, 341-374 Cormack, Annabel: 1999, “Without specifiers”. In Adger, David, Susan Pintzuk, Bernadette Plunkett, and George Tsoulas (eds.): 1999, Specifiers. Minimalist approaches. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press 46-68 Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van: 2004, Ellipsis in Dutch dialects. [Doctoral dissertation, Universiteit Leiden] (LOT dissertation series 96) Utrecht, The Netherlands: Igitur Czinglar, Christine: 2001, “Decomposing existence. Evidence from Germanic”. In Abraham, Werner and Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter (eds.): 2001, Issues in formal

118 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

German(ic) typology. (Linguistik Aktuell 45) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins 95-126 Dahl, Östen: 2004, “Definite articles in Scandinavian: Competing grammaticalization processes in standard and non-standard varieties”. In Kortmann, Bernd (ed.): 2004, Dialectology meets typology. Dialect grammar from a cross-linguistic perspective. (Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs 153) Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter 147-180 Dalrymple, Mary: 1993, The syntax of anaphoric binding. (CSLI lecture notes 36) Stanford, Cal: Center for the study of language and information Déchaine, Rose-Marie: 1993, “Serial verb constructions” In Jacobs, Joachim, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld, and Theo Vennemann (eds.): Syntax. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung. (Handbücher der Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 9.1/1) Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter 799-825 Déchaine, Rose-Marie and Victor Manfredi: 1994, “Binding domains in Haitian” Natural language and linguistic theory 12/203-257 Delsing, Lars-Olof: 1993, The internal structure of noun phrases in the Scandinavian languages. A comparative study. [Doctoral dissertation, Lunds universitet] Lund, Sweden: Institutionen för nordiska språk Delsing, Lars-Olof: 1998, “Possession in Germanic”. In Alexiadou, Artemis and Chris Wilder (eds.): Possessors, predicates and movement in the determiner phrase. (Linguistik Aktuell 22) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins 87-108 Deprez, Viviane: 1994, “Parameters of object movement”. In Corver, Norbert and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.): 1994, Studies on scrambling. Movement and non-movement approaches to free word-order phenomena. (Studies in generative grammar 41) Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter 101-152 den Dikken, Marcel: 1995, Particles. On the syntax of verb-particle, triadic, and causative constructions. (Oxford studies in comparative syntax) Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press den Dikken, Marcel and Alma Næss: 1993, “Case dependencies. The case of predicate inversion”. The linguistic review 10, 303-336 Dik, Simon C.: 1980, Studies in functional grammar. London, UK: Academic Press Engdahl, Elisabet: 1985, “Parasitic gaps, resumptive pronouns, and subject extractions”. Linguistics 23, 3-44 Engdahl, Elisabet: 1986, Constituent questions. The syntax and semantics of questions with special reference to Swedish. (Studies in linguistics and philosophy 27) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel Engdahl, Elisabet: 1988 [1988a], “Interpreting questions”. In Dowty, David R., Lauri Karttunen, and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.): 1988, Natural language parsing. (Studies in natural language processing). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press 67-93

119 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Engels, Eva: 2004, Adverb Placement. An Optimality Theoretic Approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Humanwissenschaftliche Fakultät, Universität Potsdam. Germany. [Electronic version quoted: http://opus.kobv.de/ubp/volltexte/2005/245/pdf/engels.pdf (25 May 2006)] Ernst, Thomas: 2002, The syntax of adjuncts. (Cambridge studies in linguistics 96). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Everaert, Martin: 1986, The syntax of reflexivization. (Publications in language sciences 22) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris Falk, Yehuda N.: 2001, Lexical-functional grammar. An introduction to parallel constraint- based syntax. (CSLI lecture notes 126) Stanford, Cal: CSLI publications Fanselow, Gisbert: 1991, Minimale Syntax. (Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 32). Groningen, The Netherlands: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Germanistisch Instituut Feuillet, Jack: 1998, “Typologie de <être> et phrases essives”. In Feuillet, Jack (ed.): 1998, Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe. (Empirical approaches to language typology. EUROTYP 20-2) Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter 663-751 Gavruseva, Elena: 2000, “On the syntax of possessor extraction”. Lingua 110, 743-772 van Gelderen, Véronique: 1997, “Universals and minimalist features. Checking in Agr0”. In Alexiadou, Artemis and T. Alan Hall (eds.): Studies on universal grammar and typological variation. (Linguistik Aktuell 13) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins 181-196 van Gelderen, Véronique: 2003, Scrambling unscrambled. [Doctoral dissertation, Universiteit Leiden] (LOT dissertation series 83) Utrecht, The Netherlands: LOT Giorgi, Alessandra and Giuseppe Longobardi: 1991, The syntax of noun phrases. Configuration, parameters and empty categories. (Cambridge studies in linguistics) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Giusti, Francesca Fici: 1998, “Diathèse et voix marquée dans les langues d’Europe”. In Feuillet, Jack (ed.): 1998, Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe. (Empirical approaches to language typology. EUROTYP 20-2). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter 347-389 Giusti, Giuliana: 1990 [1990a], “Floating quantifiers in Germanic”. In Mascaró, Joan and Marina Nespor (eds.): 1990, Grammar in progress: GLOW essays for Henk van Riemsdijk. (Studies in generative grammar 36) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris 137-146 Giusti, Giuliana: 1990 [1990b], “Floating quantifiers, scrambling, and configurationality”. Linguistic Inquiry 21/4, 633-641 Giusti, Giuliana: 1994, “Enclitic articles and double definiteness: a comparative analysis of nominal structure in Romance and Germanic”. The linguistic review 11, 241-255

120 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Giusti, Giuliana: 1995, “A unified structural representation of (abstract) case and article. Evidence from Germanic”. In Haider, Hubert, Susan Olsen, and Sten Vikner (eds.): 1995, Studies in comparative Germanic syntax. (Studies in natural language and linguistic theory 31) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer 77-93 Guéron, J.: 1990, “Particles, prepositions, and verbs”. In Mascaró, Joan and Marina Nespor (eds.): 1990, Grammar in progress: GLOW essays for Henk van Riemsdijk. (Studies in generative grammar 36) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris 153-166 Haeberli, Eric: 2002, Features, categories and the syntax of A-positions. Cross-linguistic variation in the Germanic languages. (Studies in natural language and linguistic theory 54). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Haegeman, Liliane: 2003, “The external possessor construction in West Flemish”. In Coene, Martine and Yves D’hulst (eds.): 2003, From NP to DP. 2 The expression of possession in noun phrases (Linguistik Aktuell 56) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins 221-256 Haegeman, Liliane: 2004, “A DP-internal anaphor agreement effect”. Linguistic inquiry 35/4, 704-712 Haider, Hubert: 1993, ““Markiertheit” in der Generativen Grammatik”. In Jacobs, Joachim, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld, and Theo Vennemann (eds.): Syntax. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung. (Handbücher der Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 9.1/1) Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter 635-645 Haider, Hubert: 1997, “Precedence among predicates”. Journal of comparative Germanic linguistics 1/1, 3-41 Haider, Hubert: 2000, “The license to license: Licensing of structural case plus economy yields Burzio’s generalization”. In Reuland, Eric (ed.): Arguments and case. Explaining Burzio’s generalization. (Linguistik Aktuell 34) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins 31-55 Haider, Hubert: 2005, “How to turn German into Icelandic - and derive the OV-VO contrasts.” Journal of comparative Germanic linguistics 8, 1-53 Harbert, Wayne: 1995, “Binding theory, control and pro”. In Webelhuth, Gert (ed.): 1995, Government and binding theory and the minimalist program. Principles and parameters in syntactic theory. (Generative syntax 1) Oxford, UK: Blackwell 177- 240 Harris, Alice C. and Lyle Campbell: 1995, Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. (Cambridge studies in linguistics 74 ) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Haspelmath, Martin and Oda Buchholz: 1998, “Equative and similative constructions in the languages of Europe”. In van der Auwera, Johan and Dónall P.Ó Baoill (eds.): Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe. (Empirical approaches to language typology. EUROTYP 20-3) Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter 277-334 Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva: 2002, World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press

121 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Heller, Monica: 1988, “Introduction”. In Heller, Monica: 1988, Codeswitching. Anthropological and sociolinguistic perspectives. (Contributions to the sociology of language 48) Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter 1-24 Hellinger, Marlis and Hadumod Bussmann (eds.): 2001-, Gender across languages. The linguistic representation of women and men. (Impact. Studies in language and society 9-11) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Hendrick, Randall: 1995, “Morphosyntax”. In Webelhuth, Gert (ed.): 1995, Government and binding theory and the minimalist program. Principles and parameters in syntactic theory. (Generative syntax 1) Oxford, UK: Blackwell 297-347 Hoekstra, Teun: 1990, “Agreement and variables”. In In Mascaró, Joan and Marina Nespor (eds.): 1990, Grammar in progress: GLOW essays for Henk van Riemsdijk. (Studies in generative grammar 36) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris 211-220 Hoekstra, Teun: 1995, “To have to be dative”. In Haider, Hubert, Susan Olsen, and Sten Vikner (eds.): 1995, Studies in comparative Germanic syntax. (Studies in natural language and linguistic theory 31) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer 119-137 Hoekstra, Teun and Jacqueline Guéron: 2004, “T-chains and auxiliaries”. In Sybesma, Rint, Sjef Barbiers, Marcel den Dikken, Jenny Doetjes, Gertjan Postma, and Guido vanden Wyngaerd (eds.): 2004, Teun Hoekstra. Arguments and structure. Studies on the architecture of the sentence. (Studies in generative grammar 67) Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter 145-178 Hoekstra, Teun and René Mulder: 1990, “Unergatives as copular verbs; locational and existential predication”. The linguistic review 7, 1-79 Holmberg, Anders: 1986, Word order and syntactic features in the Scandinavian languages and English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stockholms universitet. Stockholm, Sweden Holmberg, Anders: 1998, “Word order variation in some European SVO languages: a parametric approach”. In Siewierska, Anna (ed.): Constituent order in the languages of Europe. (Empirical approaches to language typology, EUROTYP 20-1) Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter 553-598 Holmberg, Anders: 1999, “Remarks on Holmberg’s generalization”. Studia Linguistica 53, 1-39 Holmberg, Anders: 2002, “Expletives and agreement in Scandinavian passives”. Journal of comparative Germanic linguistics 4, 85-128 Holmberg, Anders: 2005 [2005a], “Linearization in two ways”. Theoretical linguistics 31, 1/2, 147-157 Holmberg, Anders and Christer Platzack: 1995, The role of inflection in Scandinavian syntax. (Oxford studies in comparative syntax) New York, NY: Oxford University Press

122 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Holmberg, Anders and Christer Platzack: 2005, “The Scandinavian languages”. In Cinque, Guglielmo and Richard S. Kayne (eds.): The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press 420-458 Holmberg, Anders and Görel Sandström: 1996, “Scandinavian possessive constructions from a Northern Swedish viewpoint”. In Black, James R. and Virginia Motapanyane (eds.): Microparametric syntax and dialect variation. (Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series IV, Current issues in linguistic theory) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins 95-120 Holmberg, Anders and Jan Rijkhoff: 1998, “Word order in the Germanic languages”. In Siewierska, Anna (ed.): Constituent order in the languages of Europe. (Empirical approaches to language typology, EUROTYP 20-1) Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter 75-104 Hopper, Paul: 1998, “The paradigm at the end of the universe”. In Ramat, Anna G. and Paul Hopper (eds.): 1998, The limits of grammaticalization. (Typological studies in language 37 ) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins 147-158 Hróarsdóttir, Þorbjörg: 2000, “Interacting movements in the history of Icelandic”. In Pintzuk, Susan, George Tsoulas, and Anthony Warner (eds.): 2000, Diachronic syntax. Models and mechanisms. (Oxford linguistics) Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press 296-321 Huang, Yan: 2000, Anaphora. A cross-linguistic approach. (Oxford studies in typology and linguistic theory) Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press Hudson, Richard A.: 1996, Sociolinguistics. (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics) [second edition] Cambridge, UK: Cambridge university press Hyams, Nina: 2002, “Clausal structure in child Greek: a reply to Varlokosta, Vainikka and Rohrbacher and a reanalysis”. The linguistic review 19, 225-269 Ingham, Richard: 2000, “Negation and OV order in Late Middle English”. Journal of linguistics 13-38 Izvorski, Roumyana: 1997, “The present perfect as an epistemic modal”. In Lawson, Aaron (ed.): Conference on semantics and linguistic theory. [SALT VII. Proceedings from semantics and linguistics theory VII. Stanford University, April 21-23, 1997.] Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, Cornell University 222-239 [Electronic version quoted: http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~pancheva/evidentialperfect.pdf (22 September 2005)] Jonas, Dianne Elizabeth: 1996, Clause structure and verbal syntax in Scandinavian and English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Cambridge, Mass. [Dissertation Abstracts International, Section A: The Humanities and Social Sciences, (58:2) 1997 Aug, 438. Harvard U, 1997. UMI microform 9721673 . (1997)] Katz, Graham: 2003, “A modal account of the English present perfect puzzle”. In Young, Robert B. and Yuping Zhou (eds.): Conference on semantics and linguistic theory. [SALT XIII. Proceedings from semantics and linguistic theory XIII] Ithaca, NY:

123 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Cornell University [Quoted fromhttp://www.cogsci.uni- osnabrueck.de/~gkatz/Papers/SaltXIII.pdf (21 August 2006)] Kemmer, Suzanne: 1993, The middle voice. (Typological studies in language (TSL) 23) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Kester, Ellen-Petra: 1996, The nature of adjectival inflection. (OTS dissertation series) [Onderzoeksinstituut voor Taal en Spraak, Universiteit Utrecht] Utrecht, The Netherlands: LEd Kilarski, Marcin and Grzegorz Krynicki: 2005, “Not arbitrary, not regular: The magic of gender assignment”. In Delbecque, Nicole, Johan van der Auwera, and Dirk Geeraerts (eds.): 2005, Perspectives on variation. Sociolinguistic, historical, comparative. (Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs 163) Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter 234-250 König, Ekkehard and Martin Haspelmath: 1998, “Les constructions à possesseur externe dans les langues d’Europe”. In Feuillet, Jack (ed.): 1998, Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe. (Empirical approaches to language typology. EUROTYP 20-2). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter 525-606 Koopman, Hilda: 1999, “The internal and external distribution of pronominal DPs”. In Johnson, Kyle and Ian Roberts (eds.): 1999, Beyond principles and parameters. Essays in memory of Osvaldo Jaeggli. (Studies in Natural language and linguistic theory 45) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer 91-132 Koopman, Hilda: 2000, “Internal and external distribution”. In The syntax of specifiers and heads. Collected essays of Hilda J. Koopman. (Routledge leading linguists 3) London, UK: Routledge 91-132 Koopman, Hilda and Anna Szabolcsi: 2000, Verbal complexes. (Current studies in linguistics series 34 ) Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria: 2003, “Possessive noun phrases in the languages of Europe”. In Plank, Frans (ed.): 2003, Noun phrase structure in the languages of Europe. (Empirical approaches to language typology. EUROTYP 20-7) Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter 621-722 Kuteva, Tania A.: 1999, “On ‘sit’/’stand’/’lie’ auxiliation”. Linguistics 37/2, 191-213 Larson, Richard K.: 1988, “On the double object construction”. Linguistic inquiry 19/3, 335-391 Larson, Martha Anne: 2005, The empty object construction and related phenomena. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Faculty of the Graduate School, Cornell University NY. [available at http://greece.imk.fhg.de/publications/Larson2005_EOC_diss.pdf (9 June 2006)] Lazard, Gilbert: 2001 [1994], “L’actant H: sujet ou objet?”. In Lazard, Gilbert: 2001, Études de linguistique générale. Typologie grammaticale. Paris, France: Peeters 219- 242. [Printed the first time in Bulletin de la Société linguistique de Paris 89/1, 1-28. Quoted after the reprinted version]

124 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Lefebvre, Claire: 2004, “Coordinating constructions in Fongbe with reference to Haitian creole”. In Haspelmath, Martin: 2004, Coordinating constructions. (Typological studies in language 58) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins 123–164 Lenerz, Jürgen: 1985, “Zur Theorie syntaktischen Wandels: das expletive es in der Geschichte des Deutschen”. In Abraham, Werner (ed.): Erklärende Syntax des Deutschen. (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 25) Tübingen, Germany: Narr 99-136 Lidz, Jeffrey L.: 1996, Dimensions of reflexivity. Doctoral dissertation. University of Delaware. [Electronic version quoted: [http://www.ling.udel.edu/dissertations/lidz_96.pdf (8 September 2005)]118 Lobeck, Anne: 1995, Ellipsis. Functional heads, licensing, and identification. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press Ludlow, Peter: 1999, Semantics, tense, and time. An essay in the metaphysics of natural language. (“A Bradford book”) Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press Maling, Joan: 1978a, “The complementizer in Middle English appositives.” Linguistic inquiry 9/1, 719-725 Maling, Joan: 1978b, “An asymmetry with respect to wh-islands.” Linguistic inquiry 9/4, 75-89 Maling, Joan: 1983, “Transitive adjectives: A case of categorial reanalysis”. In Heny, Frank and Barry Richards (eds.): 1983, Linguistic categories: Auxiliaries and related puzzles. I Categories. (Synthese language library 19) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel 253-289 Maling, Joan: 2001, “Dative: The heterogeneity of the mapping among morphological case, grammatical functions, and thematic roles.” Lingua 11, 419-464 Maling, Joan and Rex A. Sprouse: 1995, “Structural case, specifier-head relations, and the case of predicate NPs”. In Haider, Hubert, Susan Olsen, and Sten Vikner (eds.): 1995, Studies in comparative Germanic syntax. (Studies in natural language and linguistic theory 31) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer 167-186 Maling, Joan and Annie Zaenen: 1982, “A phrase structure account of Scandinavian extraction phenomena”. In Jacobson, Pauline and Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.): The nature of syntactic representation. (Synthese language library 15) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel 229-282 Mallen, Enrique: 1997, “A minimalist approach to concord in noun phrases”. Theoretical linguistics 23, 49-77 Merchant, Jason: 2000, “On the behavior of PPs under sluicing in Germanic” The 15th Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax (May 26-27, 2000, University of Groningen, The Netherlands. [http://odur.let.rug.nl/~zwart/cgsw/abstracts/merchant.pdf. (23 April 2005.)]

118 As off May 2006, this much quoted dissertation appears to be no longer available in its electronic version however.

125 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Merchant, Jason: 2001, The syntax of silence. Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. (Oxford studies in theoretical linguistics 1) Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press Merchant, Jason: 2002, “Swiping in Germanic”. In Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter and Werner Abraham (eds.): 2002, Studies in comparative Germanic syntax. Proceedings from the 15th workshop on comparative Germanic syntax. (Linguistik Aktuell 53) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins 289-315 Milroy, Lesley and Matthew Gordon: 2003, Sociolinguistics. Method and interpretation. (Language and society 34) Oxford, UK: Blackwell Müller, Gereon: 1995 [1995a], “Crossover effects, chain formation, and unambiguous binding”. In Haider, Hubert, Susan Olsen, and Sten Vikner (eds.): 1995, Studies in comparative Germanic syntax. (Studies in natural language and linguistic theory 31) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer 187-218 Müller, Gereon: 1995 [1995b], A-bar syntax. A study in movement type. (Studies in generative grammar 42) Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter Newman, John: 1996, Give. A cognitive linguistic study. (Cognitive linguistics research 7) Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter Newmeyer, Frederick J.: 1998, Language form and language function. (Language speech, and communication) (“A Bradford book”) Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press Nicol, Fabrice: 2002, “Extended VP-shells and the verb-particle construction”. In Dehé, Nicole, Ray Jackendoff, Andrew McIntyre, and Silke Urban (eds.): Verb particle explorations. (Interface explorations 1) Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter 165- 190 Norde, Muriel: 1998, “Grammaticalization versus reanalysis. The case of possessive constructions in Germanic”. In Hogg, Richard M. and Linda van Bergen (eds.): Historical linguistics 1995. Selected papers from the 12th international conference on historical linguistics, Manchester, August 1995 2, Germanic linguistics. (Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series IV, Current issues in linguistic theory) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins 211-222 Ogawa, Yoshiki: 2001, A unified theory of verbal and nominal projections. (Oxford studies in comparative syntax) Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press Pérez-Leroux, Ana T. and Thomas Roeper: 1999, “Scope and the structure of bare nominals: Evidence from child language”. Linguistics 37/5, 927-969 Perrot, Jean: 1998, “Visée communicative”. In Feuillet, Jack (ed.): 1998, Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe. (Empirical approaches to language typology. EUROTYP 20-2). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter 607-661 Pesetsky, David: 1982, “Complementizer - trace phenomena and the nominative island condition”. The linguistic review 1, 297-343

126 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Plank, Frans: 2003, “Double articulation”. In Plank, Frans (ed.): 2003, Noun phrase structure in the languages of Europe. (Empirical approaches to language typology. EUROTYP 20-7) Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter 337-395 Platzack, Christer: 1986, “COMP, INFL, and Germanic word order”. In Hellan, Lars and Kirsti Koch Christensen (eds.): 1886, Topics in Scandinavian syntax. (Studies in natural language and linguistic theory) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel 185-234 Platzack, Christer: 2000, “A complement-of-N0 account of restrictive and non-restrictive relatives: The case of Swedish”. In Alexiadou, Artemis, Paul Law, André Meinunger, and Chris Wilder (eds.): 2000, The syntax of relative clauses. (Linguistik Aktuell 32) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins 265-308 Platzack, Christer: 2002, “Relativization in the Germanic Languages, with Particular Emphasis on Scandinavian “. In Poussa, Patricia (ed.): 2002, Relativisation on the North Sea littoral. (LINCOM studies in language typology 7) München, Germany: LINCOM 77-96 Platzack, Christer and Inger Rosengren: 1997, “On the subject of imperatives. A minimalist account of the imperative clause”. Journal of comparative Germanic linguistics 1/3, 177-224 Polikarpov, Anatoliy A.: “Some factors and regularities of analytic/synthetic development of language system”. Paper presented at the workshop on language typology within the XIII International Conference on Historical Linguistcs, 10 - 17 August 1997, Heinrich-Heine-Universität. Düsseldorf, Germany [Unpublished. Available at http://www.philol.msu.ru/~lex/articles/fact_reg.htm (6 May 2006)] Ramat, Paolo: 1987, Linguistic typology. (Empirical approaches to language typology 1) Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter Reuland, Eric and Wim Kosmeijer: 1993, “Projecting inflecting verbs”. In Fanselow, Gisbert (ed.): 1993, The parametrization of universal grammar. (Linguistik aktuell 8) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins 37-71 Reinhart, Tanya and Eric Reuland: 1993, “Reflexivity”. Linguistic inquiry 24/4, 657-720 Richards, Norvin: 1997, “Competition and disjoint reference”. Linguistic inquiry 28/1, 178- 187 Richards, Norvin: 2001, Movement in language. Interactions and architectures. (Oxford linguistics) Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press Rizzi, Luigi: 1990, Relativized minimality. (Linguistic inquiry monographs 16) Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press Roberts, Ian: 1993, Verbs and diachronic syntax. A comparative history of English and French. (Studies in natural language and linguistic theory 28) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer

127 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Rohrbacher, Bernhard Wolfgang: 1999, Morphology-driven syntax. A theory of V to I raising and PRO-drop. (Linguistik Aktuell 15) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Romaine, Suzanne: 1994, Language in society. An introduction to sociolinguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford university press Rooryck, Johan: 2001, ‘Evidentiality, part II”. Glot international 5/5, 161-168. [http://www.linguistlistplus.com/glot/html/Gi5501/GI5501_SOA.htm and http://athena.leidenuniv.nl/letteren/onderzoek/ulcl/content_docs/faculty/rooryck/evide ntiality.iiglot.pdf (12 April 2006)] Rosenbach, Anette: 2002, Genitive variation in English. Conceptual factors in synchronic and diachronic studies. (Topics in English linguistics 42) Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter Sabel, Joachim: 1996, Restrukturierung und Lokalität. Universelle Beschränkungen für Wortstellungsvarianten. (Studia gammatica 42) Berlin, Germany: Akademie Verlag Safir, Ken: 1999, “Vehicle change and reconstruction in Ā-chains”. Linguistic inquiry 30/4, 587-620 Safir, Ken: 2004, The syntax of anaphora. (Oxford studies in comparative syntax) Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press Schütze, Carson T.: 2001, “On the nature of default case”. Syntax 4/3, 205-238 Siewierska, Anna: 1988, Word order rules (Croom Helm linguistics series) London, UK: Croom Helm Smith, Mark: 2004, “Light and heavy reflexives”. Linguistics 42/3, 573-615 Smith, Quentin: 2003, “Reference to the Past and Future”. In Jokić, Aleksandar and Quentin Smith: 2003, Time, Tense, and Reference. (“A Bradford book”) Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press 357-390 Svenonius, Peter: 1993, “Selection, adjunction and concord in the DP”. Studia linguistica 47/2, 198-220 Svenonius, Peter: 1994, Dependent Nexus. Subordinate Predication Structures in English and the Scandinavian Languages. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz. Santa Cruz, Cal. [Quotations from http://lingo.stanford.edu/sag/L221a/sven/dncover.pdf etc. (June 2005)] Svenonius, Peter: 2000, “Quantifier movement in Icelandic”. In Svenonius, Peter (ed.): The derivation of VO and OV. (Linguistik Aktuell 31) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins 255-292 Svenonius, Peter: 2002 [2002a], “Subject positions and the placement of adverbials”. In Svenonius, Peter (ed.): Subjects, expletives, and the EPP. (Oxford studies in comparative syntax) Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press 201-242

128 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Svenonius, Peter: 2004, “On the edge”. In Adger, David, Cécile de Cat and George Tsoulas (eds.): Peripheries. Syntactic edges and their effects. (Studies in Natural language and linguistic theory 59) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer 259-287 Svenonius, Peter: 2005 [2005a], “How phonological is object shift?”. Theoretical linguistics 31, 1/2, 215-227 Swann, Joan: 2000, “Language choice and code-switching”. In Mesthrie, Rajend, Joan Swann, Andrea Deumert and William L. Leap (eds.): Introducing sociolinguistics. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh university press 148-183 Tanaka, Tomoyuki: 2000, “On the development of transitive expletive constructions in the history of English”. Lingua 110, 473-495 Thiam, Ndiassé: 1997, “Alternance codique”. In Moreau, Marie-Louise (ed.): 1997, Sociolinguistique. Les concepts de base. (Psychologie et sciences humaines 218) Bruxelles, Belgium: Mardaga 32-34 Thráinsson [Þráinsson], Höskuldur: 2001, “Object shift and scrambling”. In Baltin, Mark and Chris Collins (eds.): The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Toivonen, Ida: 2003, Non-projecting words. A case study of Swedish particles. (Studies in natural language and linguistic theory 58) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Tomlin, Russell S.: 1986, Basic word order. Functional principles. (Croom Helm linguistics series) London, UK: Croom Helm Toyoshima, Takashi: 2001, “Head-to.spec movement”. In Alexandrova, Galina M. and Olga Arnaudova (eds.): 2001, The minimalist parameter. Selected papers from the open linguistics forum. Ottawa, 21-23 March 1997. (Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. IV, Current issues in linguistic theory 192) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins 115-136 Ura, Hiroyuki: 2000, Checking theory and grammatical functions in universal grammar. (Oxford studies in comparative syntax) Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press Vergnaud, Jean-Roger and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta: 1992, “The definite determiner and the inalienable construction in French and English”. Linguistic inquiry 23/4, 595-652 Vikner, Sten: 1995, Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. (Oxford studies in comparative syntax) New York NY: Oxford University Press Vikner, Sten: 1997, “V0-to-I0 movement and inflection for person in all tenses”. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.): 1997, The new comparative syntax. (Longman linguistics library) London, UK: Longman 189-213 Watanabe, Akira: 1996, Case absorption and WH-agreement. (Studies in natural language and linguistic theory 37) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Webelhuth, Gert: 1992, Principles and parameters of syntactic saturation. (Oxford studies in comparative syntax) Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press

129 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Widmark, Gun: 2005, “Standard and colloquial languages in Scandinavia in the 19th century”. In Bandle, Oscar et al. (eds.): The Nordic languages. An international handbook of the history of the North Germanic Languages 2. (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 22) Berlin, Germany: Mouton deGruyter 1493-1505 Willim, Ewa: 1999, “On the syntax of the genitive in nominals: the case of Polish”. In Kenesei, István (ed.): 1999, Crossing boundaries. Advances in the theory of Central and Eastern European languages. (Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. IV, Current issues in linguistic theory 182) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins 179-209 Young, Katherine McCreight: 1988, Multiple case assignments. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Massachusetts Institute of technology, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. [Available at https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/1721.1/14409/1/20150387.pdf (16 November2005)] Zeller, Jochen: 2001, Particle verbs and local domains. (Linguistik Aktuell 41) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Zeller, Jochen: 2002, “Particle verbs ar heads and phrases”. In Dehé, Nicole, Ray Jackendoff, Andrew McIntyre, and Silke Urban (eds.): Verb particle explorations. (Interface explorations 1) Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter

130 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Unpublished or non-refereed material

This material was encountered by chance during the search period. As such, it represents a small but fairly random selection of examples.

Norwegian characters

8 Apparently, in Norwegian, bare verbs can form SMC, as pointed out to us by Tarald Taraldsen. Many thanks for discussion of this and related points to Anders Holmberg, Oystein Nilsen, and Peter Svenonius. A relevant example is this:

(i) hvis du vil til Oslo er det bare aa sette seg paa toget if you want to Oslo is it only to sit RFL on the-train ‘If you want to go to Oslo, you only have to get on a train.’ (von Fintel and Iatridou 2005, 9n) Errors: “aa” and “paa”. Correct: “å” and “på”. Error: “Oystein”. Correct: “Oystein”.

Evidence for this position comes from Norwegian, in which it is possible to form a sufficiency modal construction with only and a bare verb (von Fintel & Iatridou 2005:14, fn. 8):

(44) Hvis du vil til Oslo er det bare aa sette seg paa tooget. if you want to Oslo is it only to sit Refl on the-train ‘If you want to go to Oslo, you only have to get on a train.’ (Huitink 2005, 17) Errors: “aa” and “paa”. Correct: “å” and “på”

131 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Accidental errors

The behaviour of “ambient” expletives in Norwegian, Icelandic and German is illustrated in (5-7) below:

(5) a. det regnar igår (Norwegian) it rained yesterday

b. Igår regnar *(det) yesterday rained *(it) (Biberauer 2003 5) Errors: “regnar”. Possible correct forms: “regnet” (Bokmål only) or “regna” (Bokmål or Nynorsk). “regnar” is Nynorsk present. Present is excluded because of “igår”. Since “igår” reflects obsolete Bokmål orthography (correct: “ i går”), “regnet” is liable to be the correct form. Although Danish orthography was changed at this point too quite a few years ago, “igår” is still felt to be Danish - and, in fact, is still widely used in Danish. This may be a clue to some of the other errors found in Biberauer’s examples of Norwegian.

(29) a. Vi syket Line opp for å løpe. b. ? Vi syket opp Line for å løpe. we psyched up Line up for to run ‘We psyched Line up to run’ (Svenonius 1996b, 58) Error: “syket”. Correct: “psyket”.

(30) a. Kokken brennte {*svart} kyllingen {svart}. (Nor) the.cook burned black the.chicken black ‘The cook burned the chicken black. (Svenonius 1996a, 11) Error: “brennte”. Correct: “brente”.

(77) (---) c. Kellneren tørket {av} støvet {av}. (Nor) (---) the.waiter wiped off the.dust off (78) (---) c. Kellneren tørket {av} bordet {*av} (Nor) (---)

132 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

the.waiter wiped off the.table off (Svenonius 1996a, 32) Errors: “Kellneren”. Correct: “Kelneren”.

(35) (---) b. De hellte (øl) i glasset. they poured beer in the.glass (Svenonius 2003, 441 Error: “hellte”. Correct “helte”.

(17) (---) [130] b. Vi skjønnte ingenting. we understood nothing ‘We understood nothing’ (Svenonius 2002c, 129f.) Error: “skjønnte”. Correct: “skjønte”.

(46) a. Forfatterne beholdte rettighetene til mange av manuskriptene sine. The.authors retained the.rights to many of their the.manuscripts RFX ’The authors retained the rights to many of their manuscripts’ (---) c. Ingen av forfatterne beholdte rettighetene til ingen av manuskriptene sine. None of the.authors retained the.rights to none of the.manuskripts RFX ’None of the authors retained the rights to none of their manuscripts’ (Svenonius 2002b, 19 Errors: “beholdte”. Correct “beholdt”.

(11) (---) Han synger på ingen måte visesanger. he sings on no way folk.songs ‘In no sense does he sing folk songs’ (Svenonius 2002b, 5) Error: “visesanger”. Correct: “viser” (of VISE ‘(folk)song’. (VISESANGER m means ‘ballad singer’.) VISESANG m is an idiosyncratic word: a possible word of the kind that one may find on the web in a very restricted number. It conveys the literal meaning ‘balladsong’, and has a childish ring.

(9) (---) c. Han synger på ingen måte visesanger. he sings on no way folk.songs ‘In no sense does he sing folk songs’ (Svenonius 2002c, 126) Error: “visesanger”. Correct: “viser” (of VISE ‘(folk)song’. (VISESANGER m means ‘ballad singer’.). Cf Svenonius 2002b, 5 above.

133 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(28) a. Ingenting har de diskutert på åresvis (har de vel?) nothing has they discussed on years have they well ‘They haven’t discussed anything in years (have they?)’ (Svenonius 2002c, 134) Odd. After “på” one should have expected “år og dag”. Error: “åresvis”. Correct: “årevis”. ÅRESVIS is a non standard form corresponding to a form with a limitted distribution in certain dialects.

Interference?

(8) a. Der er kommet en dreng (Norwegian) there is come a boy

b. Igår er *(der) kommet en dreng yesterday is *(there) come a boy (Biberauer 2003 5) Error: “dreng” in the sense of ‘boy’ is Danish. (Norwegian DRENG means ‘ farm hand’). Correct: “gutt”. (As for “igår”, cf. above.) The combination of “Der” and “er kommet” may be found in a dialect on the South coast. Still, it is felt by the vast majority of Norwegians as Danish.

(11) a. Der er blevet danset (Norwegian) there has been danced

b. Igår er *(der) blevet danset yesterday is *(there) been danced (Biberauer 2003 6) Errors: “blevet “. Correct: “blitt”. Correct auxiliary: “har” (of HA ‘have’), not “er” (of VÆRE ‘be’). This is Danish. (As for “igår”, cf. above.) The combination of “Der” and “er blevet (blitt)” may be found in a dialect on the South coast. Still, it is felt by the vast majority of Norwegians as Danish.

(33) a. Har {någon student} möjligen {någon student} läst boken? (Swe) b. Har {noen student} muligens {noen student} lest boken? (Nor) has any student possibly any student read the.book Has any student possibly read the book?. (Svenonius 1996a, 13) Unacceptable. Something is wrong about the sequence of modalities and the interrogative mode as well as the phrase “noen student”, which sounds rather Swedish. Correct Norwegian: “en (eller annen)”.

(29) a. Vi syket Line opp for å løpe. b. Vi syket opp Line for å løpe. We psyched up Line up for to run

134 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

‘We psyched Line up to run’ (Svenonius 1996b, 58) As long as the object NP is not a reflexive pronoun, PSYKE NP OPP FOR Å VP is clearly the result of interference from English, cf. the translation. b. is an arbitrary variation of this pattern.

(21) a. Små katter kan gjemme under sofaen, men store klarer det ikke. small cats can hide under sofa.DEF but big manage that not (Svenonius 1992, 107) The first (part of the) sentence lacks a “seg” following “gjemme”, as ‘hide [oneself]’ in English corresponds to GJEMME SEG in Norwegian. Thus, the “seg” missing is probably due to interference from English.

Syntactic errors

(41) (ex. 28 from Åfarli 1994:89) (---) b. som-relative Det av husa som Jon bor that of houses-the SOM Jon lives ‘the house where Jon lives’ (Bhatt 2005, 21) The preposition, “i”, is missing in final position. Correct in Åfarli 1994, 89., cf. Bhatt 2002, 82.

(30) (---) b. Musikerne anså {*over} konserten {over}. (Nor) the.musicians considered over the.concert over ‘The musicians considered the concert over. (Svenonius 1996a, 11) ANSE NP OVER is an error. Correct: ANSE NP FOR (Å VÆRE) OVER..

However, Engdahl (1997:56) noted that Norwegian seems to allow the extraction of the subject of a free relative in some instances. She gave the example shown in (1).

1 (1) Denne kunstnereni kjøper jeg hva enn ti produserer this artist buy I what ever produces ‘I buy whatever this artist produces’ (Hogoboom 2003, 78) In general, this type of relatives is a peripheral phenomenon of Norwegian. As for this particular sentence, even a similar sentence without extraction is unacceptable, which also holds for the series of sentences below of the same origin. According to Engdahl 1997, 56 (cf. below), the origin of this example is the Norwegian linguist Torbjørn Nordgård. It has, however, inspired numerous

135 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

similar sentences in Hogoboom’s paper, every one of them equally odd or worse, cf below.

(i) (a) Jeg kjøper hvor mye denne kunstneren enn produserer I buy how much this artist ever produces ‘I buy however much this artist produces’ (Hogoboom 2003, 78n)

(3) (a)

(i) Denne kunstnereni kjøper jeg hva enn ti produserer this artist buy I what ever produces ‘I buy whatever this artist produces’

(ii) Denne forfattereni oversetter jeg hva enn ti produserer this author translate I what ever produces ‘I translate whatever this author produces’

(iii)Denne kunstnereni kopierer jeg hva enn ti produserer this artist copy I what ever produces ‘I copy whatever this artist produces’

(iv) Denne kunstnereni saboterer jeg hva enn ti produserer this artist sabotage I what ever produces ‘I sabotage whatever this artist produces’ [81]

(v) Denne forfattereni leser jeg hva enn ti produserer this author read I what ever produces ‘I read whatever this author produces’

(vi) Denne kunstnereni beundrer jeg hva enn ti produserer this artist admire I what ever produces ‘I admire whatever this artist produces’

(b)

(i) Denne kunstnereni byr jeg på hva enn ti produserer this artist bid I on what ever produces ‘I bid for whatever this artist produces’

(ii) Denne kunstnereni selger jeg hva enn ti produserer this artist sell I what ever produces ‘I sell whatever this artist produces’

(iii) Denne kunstnereni liker jeg hva enn ti produserer this artist like I what ever produces ‘I like whatever this artist produces’

(iv) Denne kunstnereni hater jeg hva enn ti produserer this artist hate I what ever produces ‘I hate whatever this artist produces’ (Hogoboom 2003, 80f.)

136 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(4) (a)

(i) Denne kunstnereni kjøper jeg hva enn ti produserer this artist buy I what ever produces ‘I buy whatever this artist produces’

(ii) Denne kunstnereni kjøper jeg hva enn ti finner på this artist buy I what ever finds on ‘I buy whatever this artist thinks of’

(iii)Denne kunstnereni kjøper jeg hva enn ti maler this artist buy I what ever paints ‘I buy whatever this artist paints’

(iv) Denne kunstnereni kjøper jeg hva enn ti lager this artist buy I what ever makes ‘I buy whatever this artist makes’

(v) Denne forfattereni kjøper jeg hva enn ti skriver this author buy I what ever writes ‘I buy whatever this author writes’ [83]

(vi) Denne kunstnereni kjøper jeg hva enn ti skaper this artist buy I what ever creates ‘I buy whatever this artist creates’ (Hogoboom 2003, 82f.)

(5) (a) Denne malereni saboterer jeg hva enn ti maler this painter sabotage I what ever paints ‘I sabotage whatever this painter paints’ (Hogoboom 2003, 84)

(6) (a) Denne kokkeni beundrer jeg hva enn ti lager this cook admire I what ever makes ‘I admire whatever this cook makes’ (Hogoboom 2003, 84)

(7) (a) Johni kjøper jeg hva enn ti produserer John buy I what ever produces ‘I buy whatever John produces’ ?? (b) Hani kjøper jeg hva enn ti produserer he buy I what ever produces ‘I buy whatever he produces’ (Hogoboom 2003, 84)

(8) Denne forfattereni oversetter jeg hvor enn ti skriver this author translate I where ever writes ‘I translate wherever this author writes’ (Hogoboom 2003, 85)

137 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(9) (a) Jeg fordømmer hva enn denne administrasjonen gjør I condemn what ever this administration does (b) Denne administrasjonen fordømmer jeg hva enn gjør this administration condemn I what ever does ‘I condemn this administration, whatever it does’ (---) (Hogoboom 2003, 86)

(10) (a) Denne kunstnereni liker jeg hva enn ti produserer this artist like I what ever produces ‘I like whatever this artist produces’ or ‘I like his artist, whatever she/he produces’

(b) Denne forfattereni hater jeg hva enn ti skriver this author hate I what ever writes ‘I hate whatever this author writes’ or ‘I hate this author, whatever she/he writes’ (Hogoboom 2003, 86)119

[ii] Da kledde han {på seg} genseren {på seg}. (Nor) then clad he on RFX the.sweater on RFX ‘Then he put the sweater on’ (Svenonius 1996a, 12n) Unacceptable with “på seg” in final position.

(1c) Mannen har (opp) drukket (opp) vinen (Nor) man has up drunk up wine (Vinka 1999) Error: “(opp) drukket”. Neither “opp drukket” nor “oppdrukket” is correct

Odd sentences

(2) a. (---) b. Da forstår Jens ikke oppgaven. then understand Jens not the.assignment ‘Then Jens doesn’t understand the assignment’ (Norwegian) (Svenonius 2005b, 2) Odd, given the position of “ikke”. “ikke” between the subject and the direct object would have been idiomatically correct though, if accompanied by another adverb, e.g. “plutselig ikke” ‘all of a sudden not’.

(3) ...at Jens helt må forstå oppgaven that Jens completely must understand the.assignment

119 Observe the English translation ‘I like his artist, (---)’.

138 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

‘...that Jens must completely understand the assignment’ (Norwegian) (Svenonius 2005b, 2) Odd.

(11) b. Jeg har mått-et huske nøklene. I have.PRES must-PTCPL remember.INF the.keys ‘I have had to remember the keys’ (Norwegian) (Svenonius 2005b, 7) Although other sentences exhibiting the same construction are conceivable, this particular sentence is weird, due to a conflict between the semantics of the perfect and HUSKE ‘remember’, and the deontic reading of MÅ. (An epistemic reading is inconceivable.)

In impersonal constructions particle shift can be observed; English is quite restrictive with respect to impersonal constructions, but they are productive in Norwegian.1

(9) a. Det datt {ut} noen jordbær {ut}. (Nor) there fell out some strawberries out ‘Some strawberries fell out’ b. Det ramlet {ned} tre flasker {ned}. there tumbled down three bottles down ‘Three bottles tumbled down’ (Svenonius 1996a, 4)

1 Some speakers prefer the particle-NP order in these cases. This may be due to the fact that focused elements are often preferred at the right edge of a sentence, and the indefinite in an impersonal construction is typically focused. This may have more to do with the system of assigning sentential stress than with syntax proper. (Svenonius 1996a, 4n) NP-particle is definitely odd whatever the explanation.

(27) a. Vi kastet {ut} hunden {ut}. (Nor) b. Við hentum {út} hundinum {út}. (Ice) we threw out the.dog out ‘We threw {out} the dog {out}’ c. Mannen har drukket {opp} vinen {opp}. (Nor) d. Maðurinn hefur drukkið {upp} vínið {upp}. (Ice) the.man has drunk up the.wine up ‘The man has drunk {up} the wine {up}’

The pattern above is slightly idealized. Norwegian exhibits dialectal variation, with at least some dialects preferring Prt-NP order (---). below). Many Icelandic speakers show a preference for NP-Prt order when the noun phrase is definite (---). However, for most Norwegian dialects and for non-definite noun phrases in Icelandic, there is free variation as indicated, and even for definite noun phrases in Icelandic as in (27b, d), the Prt-NP order is

139 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

not ungrammatical but simply dispreferred. Norwegian and Icelandic also pattern with English when the particle has a complement, as in (28), which makes particle shift impossible.

(28) a. Vi kastet {*ut} hunden {ut} av huset. (Nor) b. Við hentum {*út} hundinum {út} úr húsinu. (Ice) we threw out the.dog out of the.house ‘We threw the dog out of the house’

Also as in English, unstressed pronouns must precede the particle, as illustrated in (29) below.

(29) a. Vi kastet {*ut} den {ut} (Nor) b. Við hentum {*út} honum {út} (Ice) we threw out it out ‘We threw it out’ (Svenonius 1996a, 11) Cf. comments on similar sentences above.

(2c) Vi kastet (ut) hunden (ut). (Nor) we threw out dog out (Vinka 1999)

(77) (---) c. Kellneren tørket {av} støvet {av}. (Nor) (---) the.waiter wiped off the.dust off (78) (---) c. Kellneren tørket {av} bordet {*av} (Nor) (---) the.waiter wiped off the.table off (Svenonius 1996a, 32)

(19) a. Han spiste tørrfisken opp. (Nor) b. Han spiste opp tørrfisken. he ate up the.dry.fish up ‘He ate up the dried fish’ (Svenonius 1996b, 55)

(22) a. Jeg blåser ballonger opp. (Nor) b. Jeg blåser opp ballonger I blow up balloons up ‘I’m blowing up balloons’ (Svenonius 1996b, 55)

140 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Western Norwegian (Svenonius 1996), behaves essentially as Swedish, which suggest that the feature [±telic] is strong, and thus forcing incorporation in passivized or passive-like non-predicative VPCs, (7).

(7a) *Me prøvde [ å få [ slaktet skore opp]]. (W.Nor) we tried to get carcass cut up (7b) Me prøvde [ å få [slaktet opp-skore]]. (W.Nor) we tried to get carcass up cut

On the other hand, in Standard Norwegian, Icelandic and English, the feature is optionally strong, hence (---). (Vinka 1999) At least the contention “optionally” is debatable. And there is no hyphen in “oppskore”.

(---) but in the impersonal constructions the participle is default singular in Western Norwegian (---)

(56) (---) b. Det vart hogge ned mange tre. (WNor) (---) there were chopped down many trees down ‘Many trees were chopped down’ (Svenonius 1996a, 22) This is not exactly the case. “hogge” (singular neutre) is the official Nynorsk norm, but “hogne” (plural) is widely used in Western Norway.

(5) (---) c. Det vart hogge ned mange tre. (W. Norwegian) it became chopped.SG down many trees (Svenonius 2001, 110) Same remark as to Svenonius 1996a, 22 above.

Norwegian shows considerable variation on this point. Some dialects pattern essentially with Swedish, requiring or at least strongly preferring incorporation; an example is given in (51a) from the Leikanger dialect of Sogn (in western Norway). Other dialects strongly disprefer incorporation, for example as in (51b) from the Nordreisa dialect of Troms (in northern Norway).

(51) a. ?? Trea vart hogne ned. Trea vart nedhogne. (WNor) b. Trærne ble hogd ned. ?? Trærne ble nedhogd. (NNor) the.trees were chopped down the.trees were down.chopped ‘The trees were chopped down’

For other dialects, there is substantial speaker and lexical variation.

141 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

(Svenonius 1996a, 20)120 Since a dialectal approach is made, this author finds it extraordinary that a form such as “trærne” is used to render the Nordreisa dialect. “(NNor)” is slightly misleading, as the uninitiated might think that it means ‘North Norwegian’ and not ‘Northern Norway’. The Nordreisa dialect is the continuation of a southern Norwegian dialect due to migration in not too distant history.

(19) Vi så det danses. (Nor) we saw there be.danced ‘We saw dancing going on’ (Svenonius 1996a, 8) Odd. Looks like a construct. This author can’t imagine a situation where this sentence is acceptable.

(23) (---) c. Han har sagt ingenting i timesvis. He has said nothing in hours ‘ ‘He has said nothing for hours’ (‘contentless things’) (Svenonius 2002b, 10) In this sentence, “ingenting” ‘nothing’ can only be construed as a meta use of the word. The cause is “i timesvis” ‘for hours’, which indicates that the subject of the sentences has kept saying the word “ingenting” for hours. A correct (re)translation of ‘He has said nothing for hours’ is “Han har ikke sagt noe på flere timer.”

(24) (---) Han har sagt fillesaker i timesvis. He has said trivial.things in hours ‘He has said trifling things for hours’ (Svenonius 2002b, 10) A case parallel to Svenonius 2002b, 10 above.

(28) (---) b. Ingenting har han sagt på timesvis. nothing has he said on hours He hasn’t said anything in hours (Svenonius 2002b, 11) Cf. Svenonius 2002b, 10 above.

(25) a. Du betaler for ingenting, og det gjør jeg også. you pay for nothing and that do I also ‘You are paying for nothing, and so am I’ [11]

120 (51) a. is repeated in a different format as (55) a. later on.

142 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

b. Hun ler uansett hva jeg sier, og han flirer også av ingenting she laughs regardless what I say and he laughs also of nothing ‘She laughs no matter what I say, and he laughs at nothing, too’ c. Han har sagt ingenting i hele kveld, har han ikke? he has said nothing in whole evening has he not ‘He has said nothing all evening, hasn’t he?’ (Svenonius 2002b, 10f) “Du betaler for ingenting” looks like a short answer, unless it is followed by a clause, e.g. “når du kjøper en XXX”. Additionally, a. is characterised by a certain “inconsistency” as far as the two coordinated sentences are concerned, which, in fact, is the case with b. and c. as well: “Hun ler uansett hva jeg sier,” refers to one situation and “og han flirer også av ingenting” refers to a different one, although one should have expected it otherwise, due to “også” in the last conjunct. There is equally something unidiomatical about c. “har han ikke” seems to presuppose some sort of positive content of the sentence it is tagged to, which would mean a relatively pointless ‘He has said the word “ingenting” all evening’. The unmarked interpretation of “Han har sagt ingenting i hele kveld”, though, is of a negative nature – which requires a tag question such as “, har han vel?”.

(25) a. Du betaler for ingenting, og det gjør jeg også. you pay for nothing and that do I also ‘You are paying for nothing, and so am I’ b. Hun ler uansett hva jeg sier, og han flirer også av ingenting she laughs regardless what I say and he laughs also of nothing ‘She laughs no matter what I say, and he laughs at nothing, too’ (Svenonius 2002c, 133) Odd. Cf Svenonius 2002b, 10f above.

(34) a. Kim ser fin ut i ingen klær. Kim looks fine out in no clothes ‘Kim looks good naked’ Robin ville være fornøyd med ingen jobb. Robin would be satisfied with no job ‘Robin would be satisfied jobless’ (Svenonius 2002b, 13) Idiomatically wrong. A normal way of expressing ‘Kim looks good naked’ will be “Kim ser fin ut naken” or “Kim ser fin ut uten klær.”

143 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

‘With no job, Robin would be satisfied’ or ‘With no job would Robin be satisfied’ (Svenonius 2002b, 13) As above. With the additional anomaly of the sentence initial PP.

(36) a. I ingen klær ser Kim fin ut, gjør han vel? in no clothes looks Kim nice out does he well ‘In no clothes does Kim look good, does he?’ [14] c. I ingen klær ser Kim fin ut i det hele tatt in no clothes looks Kim nice out in the whole taken ‘In no clothes does Kim look good at all’ d. Med ingen jobb ville Robin overhodet være fornøyd with no job would Robin overhead be satisfied ‘With no job would Robin be satisfied whatsoever’ (Svenonius 2002b, 13f) As above. Note the tag question in c. Cf. Svenonius 2002b, 11 above.

(37) a. Robin ville være lykkeligere med ingen dagjobb. Robin would be happier with no day.job ‘Robin would be happier without a day job’ b. Kim ser fin ut i ingen underbukser. Kim looks fin out in no underpants ‘Kim looks good without underpants’ c. Man må betale dyrt for ingen tilsetningsstoffer. One must pay expensive for no additives ‘One must pay a lot for additive-free food’ (---) e. Jeg foretrekker klær som er lagd av ingen syntetiske stoffer. I prefer clothes as are made of no synthetic materials ‘I prefer clothing which is made without synthetic materials’ (Svenonius 2002b, 14) As above. Odd.

It is perhaps no surprise by now to the reader that the Norwegian examples in (34) lack the sentence negation reading (nor will it come as a surprise that some speakers reject them outright, without context).

(34) a. Vesna ser fin ut i ingen klær. Vesna looks fine out in no clothes ‘Vesna looks good naked’ b. Sestre ville være fornøyd med ingen jobb. Sestre would be satisfied with no job ‘Sestre would be satisfied jobless’ (Svenonius 2002c, 136)

144 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Idiomatically wrong. A normal way of expressing ‘Vesna looks good naked’ will be “Vesna ser fin ut naken” or “Vesna ser fin ut uten klær.”

(35) a. I ingen klær ser Kim fin ut. in no clothes looks Kim nice out ‘In no clothes, Kim looks good’ or ‘In no clothes does Kim look good’ b. Med ingen jobb ville Robin være fornøyd. with no job would Robin be satisfied ‘With no job, Robin would be satisfied’ or ‘With no job would Robin be satisfied’ (Svenonius 2002c, 136) As above. With the additional anomaly of the sentence initial PP.

(36) a. I ingen klær ser Kim fin ut, gjør han vel? in no clothes looks Kim nice out does he well ‘In no clothes does Kim look good, does he?’ (---) c. I ingen klær ser Kim fin ut i det hele tatt in no clothes looks Kim nice out in the whole taken ‘In no clothes does Kim look good at all’ [137] d. Med ingen jobb ville Robin overhodet være fornøyd with no job would Robin overhead be satisfied ‘With no job would Robin be satisfied whatsoever’ (Svenonius 2002c, 136f) As above. Note the tag question in c.

(37) a. Marko ville være lykkeligere med ingen dagjobb. Marko would be happier with no day.job ‘Marko would be happier without a day job’ b. Ira ser fin ut i ingen underbukser. Ira looks fin out in no underpants ‘Ira looks good without underpants’ c. Man må betale dyrt for ingen tilsetningsstoffer. One must pay expensive for no additives ‘One must pay a lot for additive-free food’ (---) e. Jeg foretrekker klær som er lagd av ingen syntetiske stoffer. I prefer clothes as are made of no synthetic materials ‘I prefer clothing which is made of no synthetic materials’ (Svenonius 2002c, 137) As above. Odd.

(46) (---) c. Ingen av forfatterne beholdte rettighetene til ingen av manuskriptene sine.

145 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

none of the.authors retained the.rights to none of the.manuskriptd RFX ‘None of the authors retained the rights to none of their manuscripts’ (Svenonius 2002b, 19) Odd.

(47) (---) c. Ingen av artistene beholdt rettighetene til ingen av låtene sine. none of the.artists retained the.rights to none of the.songs RFX ‘None of the artists retained the rights to none of their songs’ (Svenonius 2002c, 143 Odd.

(42) a. Jeg vil ha et portrett av deg på veggen eller bilder av ingen. I will have a portrait of you on the.wall or pictures of nobody ‘I want a portrait of you on the wall or pictures of nobody’ b. Jeg hilste på mange menn, men fedrene til ingen av vennene mine. I greeted on many men, but the.fathers to none of the.friends my ‘I met many men, but the fathers of none of my friends’ c. …med mindre du kjøper orkidéer og blomster av ingen billigere type with less you buy orchids and flowers of no cheaper variety ‘…unless you buy orchids and flowers of no cheaper variety’ (Svenonius 2002b, 16) Odd. In connection with this group of examples one finds the following in a footnote: “These examples are at best stylistically awkward, (---).” A clear understatement.

(42) a. Jeg vil ha et portrett av deg på veggen eller bilder av ingen. I will have a portrait of you on the.wall or pictures of nobody ‘I want a portrait of you on the wall or pictures of nobody’ b. Jeg hilste på mange menn, men fedrene til ingen av vennene mine. I greeted on many men, but the.fathers to none of the.friends my ‘I met many men, but the fathers of none of my friends’ c. …med mindre du kjøper orkidéer og blomster av ingen billigere type. with less you buy orchids and flowers of no cheaper variety ‘…unless you buy orchids and flowers of no cheaper variety’ (Svenonius 2002c, 140) Odd. In connection with this group of examples one finds the following in a footnote: “These examples are at best stylistically awkward, (---).” Again a clear understatement.

(45) (---) c. Studentene kunne på ingen måte svare på ingen oppgaver. the.students could on no way answer on no assignments ‘The students could in no sense answer none of the assignments’ (Svenonius 2002b, 18)

146 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Sounds like a riddle.

(46) (---) c. Studentene kunne på ingen måte svare på ingen oppgaver. the.students could on no way answer on no assignments ‘The students could in no sense answer none of the assignments’ (Svenonius 2002c, 142) Odd. Cf. The above example.

10) Per/dere/*jeg/*meg hadde de trodd [CPt’ [TP ti ville komme forsent]] Per-N/A/you-N/A.pl/*I-N/*me-A had they thought [t’ [t would come too.late]] (Rezac s.a. 8) Rezac refers to Taraldsen 1981, which, however, does not appear in his bibliography. As for the grammaticality of the (group of) sentence(s), see Bejar and Massam (1999, 67) above.

(12) Sa provoserer Salomes mannshunger fortsatt dagens publikum So provokes Salomes man-hunger still the.days audience ‘Then Salomes hunger for men still provokes todays audiences. (13) Sa provoserer fortsatt Salomes mannshunger dagens publikum So provokes still Salomes man-hunger the.days audience (14) Sa provoserer den fortsatt dagens publikum So provokes Salomes man-hunger still the.days audience ‘Then it still provokes todays audiences. (15) ?? Sa provoserer fortsatt den dagens publikum (unless subj is focused) So provokes still it the.days audience (Adger 2005, 25) Cf. Svenonius 2002a, 221 (above) as far as the two first sentences are concerned. These sentences bear all the signs of being literary quotations from old- fashioned Dano-Norwegian sources at least one century ago. (No precise reference is given. Probably only the first one is a quotation in the first place.) As such, they are hard to understand for any contemporary native speaker of Nor- wegian - as they are for the grammarian, cf. the English translation. Note also the translation/gloss confusion in the case of (14). (15) is ungrammatical no matter the focus.

Incorrect asterisks and other results of lack of understanding

(3) a. * Det ble tre journalister arrestert i natt. (Norwegian) it became three journalists arrested in night (Svenonius 2001, 110) Ungrammatical? Not more than quite a few others of Svenonius’ Norwegian examples.

147 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Strange assertions

(34) a. They stole (money) from the rich. b. He drank (beer) out of the glass. c. She unpacked (the clothes) from the bag. d. We parked (the car) in the garage.

The examples in (34) are all independently object-drop verbs. (---). Norwegian, in contrast to English, allows structures corresponding to all of the examples in (33).

(35) a. Kan du sette (varene) i kjøleskapet? (Norwegian) can you put the.goods in the.refrigerator b. De hellte (øl) i glasset. they poured beer in the.glass c. Vi dekket (bestikk) på bordet. we covered silverware on the.table d. Vi lastet (kofferter) av bagasjetrallen. we loaded suitcases off the.baggage.cart (Svenonius 2003, 441 A conditioned truth. “Kan du sette I kjøleskapet?” is definitely odd. b. is acceptable (despite the orthographic error, cf. above). c. and d. are slightly odd. D. is only acceptable in some sort of generic sense: ‘We unloaded suitcases (and not bags) the entire day’. c. is just a little too much: DEKKE PÅ BORDET means ‘lay the table’. With bestikk ‘cutlery’, of course. What else? This author has problems imagining a context where c. will not represent a breach of the con- versational rules.

(53) a. The dog is tied. The dogs are tied. b. Bikkja e bunde. Bikkjan e bunde. (NNor) c. Hunden er bundet. Hundene er bundet. (ENor) d. Hunden er bundet. Hundene er bundet. (Dan) the.dog is tied the.dogs are tied ‘The dog is tied’ ‘The dogs are tied’

As already noted, English and Danish never allow incorporation. Northern Norwegian and Eastern Norwegian are more variable, but incorporation is never obligatory there as it is in Swedish, and is typically dispreferred (and often impossible). At the risk of oversimplification, I will treat Northern and Eastern Norwegian as non-incorporating. The remaining languages do have agreement on participles (passive participles and unaccusative perfect participles with be), again oversimplifying the Norwegian situation by assuming a single Western Norwegian standard (see Sandøy 1988 for a detailed study of the distribution of agreeing participles in Norwegian dialects).14

(54) a. Hunden är bunden. Hundarna är bundna. (Swe) b. Hunden er bunden. Hundane er bundne. (WNor)

148 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

c. Hundurin er bundin. Hundarin eru bundnir. (Far) d. Hundurinn er bundinn. Hundarnir eru bundnir. (Ice) the.do is tied the.dogs are tied ‘The dog is tied’ ‘The dogs are tied’

The incorporating languages are Faroese, Western Norwegian, and Swedish (taking Faroese to be incorporating, i.e. despite the optionality there). The pattern is represented in (55), with Swedish requiring, Western Norwegian preferring, and Faroese allowing incorporation. (Svenonius 1996a, 21) As far as Norwegian is concerned, this is definitely an oversimplification. For instance, this author, native speaker of Eastern Norwegian, may perfectly well write “Hundene er bundne”. This is part of the charm of Norwegian variability

For Norwegian and Icelandic, an event-type reading allows use of have, whereas a stative reading requires (in Icelandic) or allows (in Norwegian) the auxiliary be. [31] (75) a. Hann hefur aldreg komið hingað. (Ice) b. Han har aldri kommet hit. (Nor) he has never come here ‘He has never come here’ c. Hann er ekki kominn hingað. (Ice) d. Han er ikke kommen hit. (Nor) he is not come here ‘He has not come here’ (i.e. he’s not here now) (Svenonius 1996a, 30f.) Odd to use “kommen” in a Bokmål sentence. Off-standard variant with a certain archaic connotation. To this author, no stative reading is possible. Besides, the unmarked form is “kommet”. In Nynorsk, “komen” would have been the correct form after a form of VERE ‘be’. However, “ikke” (not Nynorsk “ikkje”) is a clear indicator of Bokmål.

Spurious references

Swedish sig. We come now to generalization [5]. The existence of obviative reflexives has been demonstrated in several languages, notably Hellan’s classic study of Norwegian anaphora (1988). I will draw my examples from Swedish, whose sig is very similar to Norwegian seg (Diderichsen 1937) and Danish seg (Vikner 1985). (Kiparsky [s.a.], 11) Diderichsen 1937 can hardly be said to be a relevant reference to the use of pronouns in Present-Day Norwegian.

149 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

References121 (reviewed titles) - not refereed

Adger, David: (2005), “2.6. Finishing off yesterday’s discussion”. Unpublished paper (handout?). LOT winterschool 2005. Center for language and cognition Groningen. January 10-21, 2005. [Electronic version quoted: http://www.let.rug.nl/~zwart/lot/adger1.pdf (26 May 2006)] Bhatt, Rajesh: 2005, “The syntax and semantics of nominal modification”. Handout. LOT summer school 2005, Universiteit Leiden. The syntax and semantics of nominal modification. June 13, 2005. [Available at http://people.umass.edu/bhatt/752-s05/752- s05-l1.pdf (14 April 2006)] Biberauer, Theresa: 2003, “Reconsidering the EPP and Spec-TP in Germanic”. In Astruc, L. & M. Richards (eds.) Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics (COPiL) 1, 15- 40. [Quotation from http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/mtb23/nsp/Downloadablepapers.html (26 April 2005)] Engdahl, Elisabet: 1997. “Relative clause extractions in context”, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 60, 51-79 von Fintel, Kai and Sabine Iatridou: 2005, “Anatomy of a modal”. Unpublished manuscript. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, May 28, 2005 [http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/www/iatridou/glow.pdf (23 December 2005) 1-56] Hogoboom, S. L. Anya: 2003, “Subject Extraction out of Free Relatives in Norwegian”. Nordlyd 31/1, 78-87 Huitink, Janneke: 2005, “Analyzing anankastic conditionals and sufficiency modals”. Unpublished manuscript. Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen. Faculteit der filosofie. [Taalfilosofie/logica. http://www.phil.kun.nl/tfl/janneke/console13-revised- Huitink.pdf (23 December 2005) 1-21] Kiparsky, Paul: [s.a.122] “Disjoint reference and the typology of pronouns” [http://www.stanford.edu/~kiparsky/Papers/anaph.hierarchies-t.pdf (22 September 2005) 1-55] Rezac, Milan: [s.a.] “Accusative Constructions and the George-Kornfildt Hypothesis”. Unpublished paper (University of Toronto) (1-11) [Quoted from the Arizona Minimalist Syntax Archives (The minimalist syntax homepage), Department of Linguistics (University of Arizona) http://minimalism.linguistics.arizona.edu/AMSA/PDF/AMSA-201-0602.pdf (22 September 2005)] Svenonius, Peter: 1992, “The extended projection of N: Identifying the head of the noun phrase”. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 49, 95-121 Svenonius, Peter: 1996 [1996a], “The Verb-Particle Alternation in the Scandinavian Languages”. [http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000046 (29 September 2005)]

121 Only those not already mentioned in one of the above list of references. 122 Last modified 2002, according to http://www.stanford.edu/~kiparsky/Papers/

150 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Svenonius, Peter: 1996 [1996b], “The Optionality of Particle Shift”. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57, 47-75. Svenonius, Peter: 2002 [2002b], “Licencing negation in Norwegian”. [http://www.hum.uit.no/a/svenonius/papers/Svenonius02NegWPSS.pdf (10 June 2006)] Svenonius, Peter: 2002 [2002c123], “Strains of negation in Norwegian”. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 69, 121-146. [Available at http://www.hum.uit.no/a/svenonius/papers/Svenonius02SNNWPSS.pdf (14 June 2006)] Svenonius, Peter: 2003, “Limits on P: filling in holes vs. falling in holes”. In Proceedings of 19th Scandinavian conference of linguistics. Nordlyd 31/2, 431-445 Svenonius, Peter: 2005 [2005b], “1...3-2”. [Available at http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/@twxBjwrHkGLRmdRq/UKTJLSyI (13 December 2005). Two of the examples listed above (Svenonius’ examples (2) b. and (11) b., have been deleted from the current version (17 August 2006) of the paper, though, cf. http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000200] Vinka, Mikael: 1999,” Two Types of Verb Particle Constructions” Abstract to the Penn Linguistics Colloquium 23. [Available at http://www.ling.upenn.edu/Events/PLC/plc23/vinka.html (15 November 2005)]

123 Apparently a more recent version of Svenonius 2002b.

151 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Other languages – a small sample

No effort has been spent searching actively for defective documentation of other languages. However, catching sight of several instances during the process is inevitable. Unfortunately, their existence seems to indicate that erroneous examples are not a privilege for a small and peripheral language such as Norwegian. A couple of errors have already been mentioned in passing. Here are a few more specimens, starting with the neighbouring languages:

Danish:

c. (Vikner (1985)) (Inf)

at Susani overtalte Anne til [ at hore på {sigi / endei} ] that Susan persuaded Anne to [ that listen to self / her ]

‘that Susani persuaded Anne to listen to heri’ (Burzio 1996, 37) Codepage problems can cause disturbing problems ... As in Norwegian, “hore” in Danish means ‘fornicate’. Misspellings likewise: “ende” mens ‘behind’. “høre”, on the other hand, means ‘hear’ and “hende” ‘her’.

(21) (---) c. Mange børn har plukket alle blomstrene. [Da.] many children have picked all the flowers (Jonas 1996, 60) Error: “blomstrene”. Correct: “blomsterne”.

Swedish:

(75) suédois böken-a blev såld-es livre-PL devenir-PAS vendu-PL (Giusti 1998, 373) Error: “bökena”. Correct: “böckerna”. Error: “såldes” (medio-passive past form). Correct “sålda” (past participle plural)

(115) a. Vafor laste studenterna inte alla den? why read the students not them Vafor laste studenterna den inte alla? b. Vafor laste studenterna inte alla artikeln? why read the students not the articles [203] *Vafor laste studenterna artikeln inte alla? (Holmberg 1986:chap. 6, (7a)) (Williams 1994, 202f.)

152 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Errors: “Vafor” and “laste”. Correct: “Varför” and”läste”. “den” ‘singular’ is translated as ‘them’, “artikeln” ‘definite form singular’ as ‘the articles’. (115) b. is an inexact copy of Holmberg’s example (Holmberg 1986, 166). Holmberg’s own gloss contains “all”, which has been omitted in Williams’ copy.

Icelandic:

(31) Icelandic (from Collins and Thrainsson, [14]) a. eg lana ekki Mariu b kurnar I lend not Maria the books ‘I do not lend Maria the books’ b. eg lana Mariu b kurnar ekki c. *eg lana b kurnar Maria ekki (Stroik 1999, 295) Errors: “eg”, “lana”, “Mariu”, and “b kurnar”. Correct: “ég”, “lána”, “Maríu”, and “bækurnar” as in “Ég lána ekki Maríu/Maríu bækurnar” (Collins og Thráinsson 1993).

Die Daten (42) aus Sigurδsson (1988) belegen, daß dies nicht der Fall ist.

(---) (42b) hafδi θér hitnaδ? (Fanselow 1991, 81) Errors: “δ” ‘delta’ and “θ”124 ‘capital theta’. Correct “ð” and “þ” as in “Hafði þér hitnað [t]?”.

(4) (---)

b. Pessinom hrinurnom i, Olafur hefur lofa Mariu hunumdat i this ring Olav has promised Maria hunum This ring, Olav has promised it to Maria (Vat 1997, 69) Errors: “Pessi”, “hrinur”, “Olafur”, “lofa “, “Mariu”, and “hunum”. Correct: “Þessi”, “hringur”, “Ólafur”, “lofað”, “Maríu”, and “honum”.

German:

[46] es gibt Löwen in Africa (---) [46’] in Africa gibt es Löwen (Lazard 2001 [1994], 232) Errors: “Africa”. Correct: “Afrika”.

124 Not italics.

153 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Two of many examples from one of the worlds most frequently spoken languages, Portuguese:

(70) portugais O nort do paí foi atingi-d-o (pela tempestade) Le nord PREP pays être:PAS atteindre-PART-M (Giusti 1998, 372) Errors: “nort” and “paí”. Correct: “norte” and “país”. Additionally, the final preposition phrase is missing in the gloss.

(57) (---) [351] b. Il manuscrito está pronto para ser lido. The manuscript is ready for to-be read ‘The manuscript is ready to be read’ (Landau 1999, 350f.) Error: “Il”. Correct: “O”. IL is Italian, O is portuguese…

And, finally, a language with the longest of philological traditions, Hebrew:

(3) - Ha’im John medaber corfatit? Q John speaks French ‘Does John speak French?’ (Holmberg 2005b, 2) Error: “corfatit”. Correct: “tsorfatit” or “tzorfatit”. The “c” may have originated in an off-standard transliteration of Modern Hebrew. According to now obsolete ISO standard ISO R259: ẕ According to Library of Congress transliteration rules: ts. According to Hebrew Streams http://www.hebrew- streams.org/works/hebrew/heb-ara-translit.pdf (22 September 2005): “academic”: ṣ “non academic” tz or ts

154 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

References125 (reviewed titles) other languages

Burzio, Luigi: 1996, “The role of the antecedent in anaphoric relations”. In Freidin, Robert (ed.): 1996), Current issues in comparative grammar. (Studies in natur language and linguistic theory 35) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer 1-45 Giusti, Francesca Fici: 1998, “Diathèse et voix marquée dans les langues d’Europe”. In Feuillet, Jack (ed.): 1998, Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe. (Empirical approaches to language typology. EUROTYP 20-2). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter 347-389 Holmberg, Anders: 2005 [2005b], “Null subjects and polarity focus”. [“Forthcoming in NELS 35 Proceedings”] [quotation from: http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/mtb23/nsp/Null%20Subjects%20and%20Polarity%20Fo cus.pdf (26 April 2005)] Landau, Idan: 1999, “Psych-adjectives and semantic selection”. The linguistic review 16, 333-358 Stroik, Thomas S.: 1999, “The survive principle”. Linguistic analysis 29/3-4, 278-303 Vat, Jan: 1997, “Left dislocation, connectedness and reconstruction”. In Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Henk van Riemsdijk, and Frans Zwarts (eds.): Materials on left dislocation. (Linguistik aktuell 14) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John benjamins 67-92 Williams, Edwin: 1994, Thematic structure in syntax. (Linguistic inquiry monographs 23) Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press

125 Only those not already mentioned in one of the above lists of references.

155 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Final observations

The basic statistics have already been presented in the introduction, and there is no point in showing “individual” statistics catering for what linguist committed most errors of what type, where and when etc. The raw data are presented and everybody is free to count for oneself. On the other hand, a certain general pattern emerges: Excerpts and even particular example sentences that contain more than one error are commonplace. Frequently, the errors pertain to various levels of description (characters, morphology, syntax etc.) E.g.

(33) a. (---) b. Slike foelsomme politiska fragor har jeg flere studenter som det ikke finnes noen som jeg tror ville våge å prata med om. (Maling and Zaenen 1982, 242)

(9) b. John synnes ham [vaere en god venn] (Hoekstra 1995, 121)

(41) Bordetj ble laft en duk pa tj the-table was put a cloth on (Hendrick 1995, 321)

This is an indication that there is no singular “technical” misspelling of any kind involved.126 In a certain sense, these are systematic errors; a clear sign of lack of competence as far as the language in question is concerned. Technically speaking, the errors may have been caused by the editor, the reviewer, the proof reader etc. Still, any error is eventually of the author’s responsibility. The impression of failing competence is strengthened by the fact that identical errors may appear in subsequent versions of the same text or, more important, in other texts by the same author (usually addressing the same problem). The examples are reused and so are the errors. E.g. Koopman 1999, 2000, Merchant 2000, 2001, 2002, and Zeller 2001, 2002. One further variant is ‘same sentence, different errors’, e.g. Maling 1978a, 87 and 1982, 245. Additionally, a number of linguists whose works exhibit errors are editors of books or journals where other errors are found. In the end, this inevitably af- fects the qualitative assessment of the errors. Considered separately, most errors documented in this report are rather trivial. On the face of it, compiling the inventory may seem to be both pointless and utterly pedantic. However, the importance of the errors increases as a consequence of their quantity both for the individual linguist (cf. above) and for linguistics on the whole. The result points at the problematic relationship between current linguistics and its empirical base, i.e. to the very foundations of linguistics. That is why, in my view, a bit of pedantry is not out of place. Strange as it may seem, there appears to be little if any difference between refereed and non-refereed papers with respect to extension and type of incorrect examples. Which, in turn, may undermine the confidence in the much-praised referee system and, in a few

126 I.e. errors of the kind that this author in fact may have made during the compilation of the present inventory.

156 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

cases, in the solidity of academic institutions. This shows that linguistic publishing has a problem too. However, further analysis of the findings with respect to editorial practice as well as possible implications for linguistics will be given elsewhere.

157 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Bibliography (general)

Literature referred to by the present author and a selection of references appearing in the reviewed texts, i.e. titles containing no deficient documentation that will fall within the scope of this report.127

Aass, Kristin Hauge: 1979, Refleksivitet i moderne norsk. Bruken av seg og sin. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Institutt for nordisk språk og litteratur, Universitetet i Oslo. Oslo, Norway Åfarli, Tor Anders: 1985, “Norwegian verb particle constructions as causative constructions”. Nordic journal of linguistics 8, 75-98 Åfarli, Tor Anders: 1992, The syntax of Norwegian passive constructions. (Linguistik Aktuell 7) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Åfarli, Tor Anders: 1994, “A promotion analysis of restrictive relative clauses”. Linguistic Review 11/1, 81–100. Åfarli, Tor Anders and Chet Creider: 1987, “Nonsubject pro-drop in Norwegian”. Linguistic inquiry 18, 339-345 Askedal, Jon Ole: 1986, “On ergativity in Modern Norwegian”. Nordic journal of linguistics 9, 25-45 Austin, Jennifer R., Stefan Engelberg, and Gisa Rauh (eds.): 2004, Adverbials. The interplay between meaning, context, and syntactic structure. (Linguistik Aktuell 70) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Bach, Edmund: 1974, Syntactic theory. New York, N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Beito, Olav T.: 1986, Nynorsk grammatikk. Lyd og ordlære. [Second edition] Oslo, Norway: Det norske samlaget Bentzen, Kristine: 2003, “V-to-I movement in the absence of morphological cues. Evidence from adult and child Northern Norwegian”. In Dahl, Anne, Peter Svenonius, and Marit Richardsen Westergaard (eds.): 2003, Proceedings of the 19th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, vol.31.3: Acquisition. Nordlyd 31/3, 573-588 Berkov, Valerij P.: 1988, “Resultative, passive and perfect in Norwegian”. In Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. (ed.): 1988, Typology of resultative constructions. [English translation edited by Bernard Comrie] (Typological studies in language 12) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins 433-448 Besten, Johannes [Hans] Bernardus den: 1989, Studies in West Germanic syntax. [Doctoral dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Brabant, Belgium] Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Rodopi

127 Only those titles that have not already been mentioned in one of the above lists of references.

158 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Blom, Jan-Petter and John J. Gumperz: 1972, “Social meaning in linguistic structures: Codeswitching in Norway”. In Gumperz John J. and Dell Hymes (eds.): 1972, Directions in sociolinguistics. New York, N.Y.: Holt, Reinhart and Winston 407-434 Christensen, Kirsti Koch: 1982, “On multiple filler-gap constructions in Norwegian”. In Engdahl, Elisabet and Eva Ejerhed (eds.): Readings in unbounded dependencies in Scandinavian languages. (Umeå studies in the humanities 43): Umeå, Sweden: 84, 137-158 Christensen, Kirsti Koch: 1989, “Partisippkongruens, A’-argumenter og hv-flytting”. In Jahr, Ernst Håkon and Ove Lorentz (eds.): Syntaks. (Studier i norsk språkvitenskap 4) 363-385 Christensen, Kirsti Koch: 1991, “AGR adjunction and the structure of Scandinavian existential sentences”. Lingua 84, 137-158 Christensen, Kirsti Koch and Knut Tarald Taraldsen: 1989, “Expletive chain formation and past participle agreement in Scandinavian dialects”. In Benincà, Paola (ed.): 1989, Dialect variation and the theory of grammar. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris 53- 83 Collins, C. and Thráinsson, Höskuldur: 1993, “Object shift in double object constructions and the theory of case”. MIT working papers in linguistics 19, 131-174 Comrie, Bernard: 1976, Aspect. An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics 2) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Creider, Chet A.: 1987 [1986]128, “Constituent-gap dependencies in Norwegian. An acceptability study”. In Sankoff, David (ed.): 1987, Diversity and Diachrony. (Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series 4, Current issues in linguistic theory 53) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins, 415- 424 Dahl, Östen: 1979, “Typology of sentence negation”. Linguistics 17, 79-106 Dalrymple, Mary and Annie Zaenen: 1991. “Modeling anaphoric superiority”. Talk given at the International conference on current issues in computational linguistics, Penang, Malaysia Delsing, Lars-Olof: (1988), “The Scandinavian noun phrase”. Working papers in Scandinavian syntax 42, 57-79 Diderichsen, Paul: 1937, “Om pronominerne sig og sin”. Acta Philologica Scandinavica 13, 1-92 Diderichsen, Paul: 1968, Elementær dansk grammatik. [3rd version reprint] Copenhagen, Denmark: Gyldendal

128 1986 according to the author’s own CV: 1986 http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/anthropology/creider/cac_cv.html (22 September 2005)

159 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

den Dikken, Marcel: 1991, Serialization in Europe. Unpublished manuscript. Department of English, Universiteit Leiden, The Netherlands Engdahl, Elisabet: 1984, “Subject gaps. An asymmetry between questions and relatives in Norwegian”. Working papers in Scandinavian syntax 7, 1-19 Engdahl, Elisabet: 1988 [1988b], “Implicational universals: Parametric variation in GB and GPSG”. Working papers in Scandinavian syntax. 40, 1-25 Engh, Jan: 1984, “On the Development of Complex Passive”. [Paper read at the Second Workshop on Scandinavian Syntax and Theory of Grammar, Biskops-Arnö (Sweden) 1983] Workingpaper in Scandinavian Syntax 10, Trondheim, Norway Engh, Jan: 1994, Verb i passiv fulgt av perfektum partisipp. Bruk og historie. Oslo, Norway: Novus Faarlund, Jan Terje: 1981, “Obligatory fronting in a verb-initial language. An attempt at pragmatic syntax”. In Hendrick, Roberta A., Carrie S. Masek, and Mary Frances Miller (eds.): Papers from the seventeenth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. April 30 – May 1, 1981. [CLS 17]. Chicago, Ill.: Chicago Linguistic Society (University of Chicago) 45-58 Faarlund, Jan Terje, Svein Lie, Kjell Ivar Vannebo: 1997, Norsk referansegrammatikk. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget Fiva, Toril: 1984, “NP-Internal Chains in Norwegian”, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 14 Fiva, Toril: 1987, Possessor chains in Norwegian. (Tromsø-studier i språkvitenskap 9) Oslo, Norway: Novus Fretheim, Thorstein: 1976, “De besværlige hunkjønnsorda.” Dagbladet 30 March 1976 Grice, H. Paul: 1967, Logic and conversation. Unpublished lecture notes, Harvard Gundersen, Dag, Jan Engh, and Ruth Vatvedt Fjeld: 2001. Språkvett: skriveregler. Grammatikk og språklige råd fra a til å. Oslo, Norway: Kunnskapsforlaget Haegeman, Liliane: (1994), ‘Review of T. Aafarli, “The Syntax of Norwegian Passive Constructions”, Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 7. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company (1992)’, Nordic Journal of Linguistics 17/1, 77- 89 Haga, C.: 1976, “On two movement rules in Norwegian”. University of Washington working papers 2, 25-31 Haugen, Einar: 1972, “The inferential perfect in Scandinavian”. The Canadian journal of linguistics 17, 132-139 Hellan, Lars: 1988 [1988a], Anaphora in Norwegian and the theory of grammar. (Studies in generative grammar 32) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris Hellan, Lars: 1988 [1988b], “The phrasal nature of double object clusters”. Working papers in Scandinavian syntax 42, 3-24

160 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Hellan, Lars: 1991, “Containment and connectedness anaphors”. In Koster, Jan and Eric Reuland (eds.): Long distance anaphora. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press 27-48 Hestvik, Arild: 1986, “Case theory and Norwegian impersonal constructions: Subject- object alternations in active and passive verbs”. Nordic journal of linguistics 9, 181- 197 Hestvik, Arild: 1990, “LF-Movement of pronouns and the computation of binding domains”. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Brandeis University. Dissertation Abstracts International, (51:4) 1990 Oct., 1213A. (1990) Hestvik, Arild: 1992, ”LF Movement of pronouns and antisubject orientation”. Linguistic inquiry 23, 557-594 Huang, C.-T. James and C.-S. Luther Liu 2001, “Logophoricity, Attitudes and ziji at the Interface”. In Cole, Peter, Gabriella Hermon, and C.-T. James Huang (eds.): 2001, Long-distance reflexives (Syntax and semantics 33) New York, NY: Academic Press 141-195 Jespersen, Otto: 1960, “Chapters on English”. Reprinted in Selected writings of Otto Jespersen. London, UK: Allen and Unwin 153-345 Johanson, Lars: 2000, “Turkic indirectives”. In Johanson, Lars and Bo Utas (eds.): 2000, Evidentials. Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages. (Empirical approaches to language typology 24) Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter 61-87 Johnsen, Lars: 1988, “A note on subcoordination”. University of Trondheim working papers of linguistics 6, 195-201 Josefsson, Gunlög: 1991, “Pseudocoordination - a VP + VP coordination.” Working papers in Scandinavian syntax 47, 130-156 Kayne, Richard S: (1981), “On certain differences between French and English”. Linguistic inquiry 12, 349-371 Legate, Julie Anne: 2003, “Some interface properties of the phase”. Linguistic Inquiry 34/3, 506-516 Lehmann, Christian: 1985, “Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change”. Lingua e stile 20/3, 303-318 Longobardi, Giuseppe: 1994, “Reference and proper names. A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form”. Linguistic inquiry 25, 609-665 Lundeby, Einar: 1965, Overbestemt substantiv i norsk og de andre nordiske språk. (Scandinavian University Books) Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget Lødrup, Helge: 1989, Norske hypotagmer. En LFG-beskrivelse av ikke-verbale hypotagmer. (Oslo-studier i språkvitenskap 4) Oslo, Norway: Novus Lødrup, Helge: 1999, “Inalienables in Norwegian and binding theory”. Linguistics 37/3, 365-388

161 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Maling, Joan: 1984, “Non-clause-bounded reflexives in modern Icelandic”. Linguistics and philosophy 7/3, 211-241 Maling, Joan and Annie Zaenen: 1981, “Germanic word order and surface filters”. In Heny, Frank (ed.): 1981, Binding and filtering. (Croom Helm linguistics series) London, UK: Croom Helm 255-278 Marm, Ingvald and Alf Sommerfelt: 1943, Teach yourself Norwegian: a book of self- instruction in the Norwegian riksmål. (The EUP teach yourself books) London, UK: English Universities Press [Marm, Ingvald and Alf Sommerfelt: 1981, Teach yourself Norwegian. Twelfth impression. Sevenoakes, UK: Hodder and Stoughton. [first edition 1943] Mæhlum, Brit: 1996, “Codeswitching in Hemnesberget - Myth or reality?”. Journal of pragmatics 25/749-761 Nilsen, Øystein: 2005, “Some notes on cyclic linearization”. Theoretical Linguistics 31,173–183 Nilsen, Øystein: 1997, “Adverbs and A-shift”. Working papers in Scandinavian syntax 59, 1-32 Nilsson, Kåre: 1994, Norsk-portugisisk ordbok. [Second edition] Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget Norsk språkråd: 1999, Godt språk i lærebøker. Rettleiing i lærebokarbeid. (Norsk språkråds skrifter 6) Oslo, Norway: Norsk språkråd Sandøy, Helge: 1988, “Samsvarbøying av adjektiv og perfektum partisipp i norske dialektar”. In Bjørkum, Andreas and Arve Borg (eds.): Nordiske Studiar. Innlegg på den tredje nordiske dialektologkonferansen 1986. (Skrifter frå Norsk målførearkiv 40) 85-117. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget129 Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann: 1993, ”The structure of the Icelandic NP”. Studia linguistica 47/2, 177-197 Sung, Li-May: 1990, Universals of reflexives. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] Svenonius, Peter: 2001, “Impersonal passives and the EPP. A phase-based analysis”. In Holmer, Arthur, Jan-Olof Svantesson and Åke Viberg (eds.): 2001, Proceedings of the 18th Scaninavian conference of linguistics. (Travaux de l’Institut de linguistique de Lund 39/2) Lund, Sweden: Lunds universitet 109-125 Taraldsen, Knut T. 1978 [1978a]. “The scope of wh-movement in Norwegian”. In Fretheim, Thorstein and Lars Hellan (eds.): 1978: Papers from the Trondheim syntax symposium 1977. Trondheim, Norway: Lingvistisk institutt, Universitetet i Trondheim 203-254

129 Svenonius’ reference to Sandøy’s paper contains an error: “samsvarbøyning” (Bokmål) and not “samsvarbøying” (Nynorsk). (Svenonius 1996)

162 Jan Engh: Norwegian examples in international linguistics literature

Taraldsen, Knut T. 1978 [1978b]. “The scope of wh-movement in Norwegian”. Linguistic inquiry 9, 623-640 Taraldsen, Knut Tarald: 1979, “Remarks on some central problems of Norwegian syntax”. Nordic journal of linguistics 2, 23-54 Taraldsen, Knut Tarald: 1981, “Case-conflict in Norwegian topicalization”. Burke, V. and J. Pustejovsky (eds.): 1981, Proceedings of the eleventh annual meeting of the Nort Eastern Linguistic Society. Amherst, Mass.: University of Massachusetts, Graduate linguistics student association 377-398 Taraldsen, Knut Tarald: 1983, Parametric variation in phrase stucture. A case study. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Universitetet i Tromsø. Tromsø, Norway Taraldsen, Knut Tarald: 1986, “On verb second and the functional content of syntactic categories”. In Haider, Hubert and Martin Prinzhorn (eds.): 1986, Verb second phenomena in Germanic languages. (Publications in language sciences 21) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris 5-25 Taraldsen, Knut Tarald: 1990, “D-projections are N-projections in Norwegian”. In Mascaró, Joan and Marina Nespor (eds.): 1990, Grammar in progress. GLOW essays for Henk van Riemsdijk. (Studies in generative grammar 36) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris 419-431 Vangsnes, Øystein Alexander: 1995, “Referentiality and argument positions in Icelandic”. Working papers in Scandinavian syntax 55, 89-109 Vikner, Sten: 1985: “Parameters of Binder and of Binding Category in Danish“. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 23, 1-61 Vikner, Sten: 1990, Verb movement and the licensing of NP positions in the Germanic languages. Doctoral dissertation. Université de Genève, Switzerland Vikner, Sten: 1991, “Relative der and other Co elements in Danish”. Lingua 84/2-3, 109- 136 Vikner, Sten: 1994, “Scandinavian object shift and West Germanic scrambling”. In Corver, Norbert and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.): 1994, Studies on scrambling. Movement and non-movement approaches to free word-order phenomena . (Studies in generative grammar 41) Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter 487-517 Vikør, Lars: 2001, The Nordic languages. Their status and interrelations. [3rd edition] (Nordic Language Secretariat. Publication 14) Oslo, Norway: Novus

163